query_id
stringlengths 1
5
| query
stringlengths 16
147
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
1
| negative_passages
listlengths 19
19
|
|---|---|---|---|
6041 | Most effective Fundamental Analysis indicators for market entry | [
{
"docid": "425020",
"title": "",
"text": "I think by definition there aren't, generally speaking, any indicators (as in chart indicators, I assume you mean) for fundamental analysis. Off the top of my head I can't think of one chart indicator that I wouldn't call 'technical', even though a couple could possibly go either way and I'm sure someone will help prove me wrong. But the point I want to make is that to do fundamental analysis, it is most certainly more time consuming. Depending on what instrument you're investing in, you need to have a micro perspective (company specific details) and a macro perspective (about the industry it's in). If you're investing in sector ETFs or the like, you'd be more reliant on the macro analysis. If you're investing in commodities, you'll need to consider macro analysis in multiple countries who are big producers/consumers of the item. There's no cut and dried way to do it, however I personally opt for a macro analysis of sector ETFs and then use technical analysis to determine my entry and/or exit."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "594935",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From some of your previous questions it seems like you trade quite often, so I am assuming you are not a \"\"Buy and Hold\"\" person. If that is the case, then have you got a written Trading Plan? Considering you don't know what to do after a 40% drop, I assume the answer to this is that you don't have a Trading Plan. Before you enter any trade you should have your exit point for that trade pre-determined, and this should be included in your Trading Plan. You should also include how you pick the shares you buy, do you use fundamental analysis, technical analysis, a combination of the two, a dart board or some kind of advisory service? Then finally and most importantly you should have your position sizing and risk management incorporated into your Plan. If you are doing all this, and had automatic stop loss orders placed when you entered your buy orders, then you would have been out of the stock well before your loss got to 40%. If you are looking to hang on and hoping for the stock to recover, remember with a 40% drop, the stock will now need to rise by 67% just for you to break even on the trade. Even if the stock did recover, how long would it take? There is the potential for opportunity loss waiting for this stock to recover, and that might take years. If the stock has fallen by 40% in a short time it is most likely that it will continue to fall in the short term, and if it falls to 50%, then the recovery would need to be 100% just for you to break even. Leave your emotions out of your trading as much as possible, have a written Trading Plan which incorporates your risk management. A good book to read on the psychology of the markets, position sizing and risk management is \"\"Trade your way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp (I actually went to see him talk tonight in Sydney, all the way over from the USA).\""
},
{
"docid": "20064",
"title": "",
"text": "This is really shallow analysis. Just because revenues are up does not mean the market is healthy. This might indicate that a market dominating participant such as Amazon is causing prices to be aggressively driven up. The real issue isn't so much quaint dead tree versions facing off against e-books, but who is getting the money from this trade which is getting locked down to various shiny devices."
},
{
"docid": "531505",
"title": "",
"text": "Nothing is guaranteed - candlesticks are not crystal balls nor is any part of technical analysis. Candlestick patterns used correctly and in combination with other western technical indicators can increase the probability of a trade going into the derived direction, but they are not a guarantee - which is why you should always use stop losses with your candlestick or any trading. In saying that, another candlestick pattern that can provide high probability trades is the Doji, or a combination of Dojis in a row at a market extreme. Note that both Engulfing patterns and Dojis work best at price extremes (highs and lows) and in combination with other technical indicators such as an overbought momentum indicator at a market high, or an oversold momentum indicator at a market low. EDIT - An Example Here is a sample trade I placed on the 17th October and am currently 15.6% in profit on. See the chart below as it shows taking the trade on the open of the following day after a bullish engulfing pattern appeared at the bottom of a downtrend on the 16th in combination with the Slow Stochastic crossing over in the oversold region (below 20%). I would consider this a high probability trade and have placed an initial stop loss at 10% below my open price in case the trade went against me. As the price moved up I moved the 10% stop loss up as a trailing stop loss. My profit target is set at 25% or $4.00."
},
{
"docid": "588774",
"title": "",
"text": "Include warnings that these numbers are estimates and are not adjusted for the market impact and tax impact of selling these shares. They need to stop pondering to the followers of the Prosperity Theology and get their analysis changed. Going to the shareholders page and just adding up their shares in comparison to the current price is lazy and not a good indicator."
},
{
"docid": "404529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\""
},
{
"docid": "70185",
"title": "",
"text": "I found a possible data source. It offers fundamentals i.e. the accounting ratios you listed (P/E, dividend yield, price/book) for international stock indexes. International equity indices based on EAFE definitions are maintained by Professor French of French-Fama fame, at Dartmouth's Tuck Business School website. Specifics of methodology, and countries covered is available here. MSCI is the data source. Historical time interval for most countries is from 1975 onward. (Singapore was one of the countries included). Obtaining historical ratios for international stock indices is not easily found for free. Your question didn't specify free though. If that is not a constraint, you may wish to check the MSCI Barra international stock indices also."
},
{
"docid": "322070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\""
},
{
"docid": "39436",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The most fundamental answer is that when you short a stock (or an ETF), you short a specific number of shares on a specific day, and you probably don't adjust this much as the price wobbles goes up and down. But an inverse fund is not tied to a specific start date, like your own transaction is. It adjusts on an ongoing basis to maintain its full specified leverage at all times. If the underlying index goes up, it has to effectively \"\"buy in\"\" because its collateral is no longer sufficient to support its open position. On the other hand, if the underlying index goes down, that frees up collateral which is used to effectively short-sell more of the underlying. So by design it will buy high and sell low, and so any volatility will pump money out of the fund. I say \"\"effectively\"\" because inverse funds use derivatives and contracts, rather than actually shorting the underlying security. Which brings up the less fundamental issue. These derivatives and contracts are relatively opaque; the counter-parties are in it for their own benefit, not yours; and the people who run the fund get their expenses regardless of how you do, and they are hard for you to monitor. This is a hazardous combination.\""
},
{
"docid": "111281",
"title": "",
"text": "For press releases about economic data, the Bureau of Economic Analysis press release page is helpful. Depending on the series, you could also look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics press release page. For time series of both historical and present data, the St. Louis Federal Reserve maintains a database such data, including numerous measures of GDP, called FRED. They list nearly 15,000 series related to GDP alone. FRED is extremely useful because it allows you to make graphs that indicate areas of recession, like this: On the series' homepage, there's a bold link on the left side to download the data. If you simply need the most recent data, it's listed below the graph on that page. If you're interested in a more in-depth analysis, you can use the Bureau of Economic Analysis as well, specifically the National Income and Product Accounts, which are most of the numbers that feed into the calculation of GDP. FRED also archives some of these data. Both FRED and the BEA compile data on numerous other economic benchmarks as well. Other general sources for a wide range of announcements are the Yahoo, Bloomberg, and the Wall Street Journal economic calendars. These provide the dates of many economic announcements, e.g. existing home sales, durable orders, crude inventories, etc. Yahoo provides links to the raw data where available; Bloomberg and the WSJ provide links to their article where appropriate. This is a great way to learn about various announcements and how they affect the markets; for example, the somewhat disappointing durable orders announcement recently pushed markets down a few points. For Europe, look at Eurostat. On the left side of the page, they list links to common data, including GDP. They list the latest releases on the home page that I previously linked to. For the sake of keeping this question short, I'm lumping the rest of the world into this paragraph. Data for many other countries is maintained by their governments or central banks in a similar fashion. The World Bank's databank also has relevant data like Gross National Income (GNI), which isn't identical to GDP, but it's another (less common) macroeconomic indicator. You can also look at the economic calendar on livecharts.co.uk or xe.com, which list events for the US, Europe, Australasia, and some Latin American countries. If you're only interested in the US, the Bloomberg or Yahoo calendars may have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, but if you're interested in following how global markets like currency markets respond to new information, a global economic calendar is a must. Dailyfx.com also has a global economic calendar that, according to them, is specifically geared towards events that affect the forex market. As I said, governments and central banks compile a lot of this data, so to make searching easier, here are a few links to statistical agencies and central banks for major countries. I compiled this list a while ago on my personal machine, so although I think all the links are accurate, leave a comment if something isn't quite right. Statistics Australia / Brazil / Canada / Canada / China / Eurostat / France / Germany / IMF / Japan / Mexico / OECD / Thailand / UK / US Central banks Australia / Brazil / Canada / Chile / China / ECB / Hungary / India / Indonesia / Israel / Japan / Mexico / Norway / Russia / Sweden / Switzerland / Thailand / UK / US"
},
{
"docid": "205791",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, the balance sheet is where assets, liabilities, & equity live. Balance Sheet Identity: Assets = Liabilities (+ Equity) The income statement is where income and expenses live. General Income Statement Identity: Income = Revenue - Expenses If you want to model yourself correctly (like a business), change your \"\"income\"\" account to \"\"revenue\"\". Recognized & Realized If you haven't yet closed the position, your gain/loss is \"\"recognized\"\". If you have closed the position, it's \"\"realized\"\". Recognized Capital Gains(Losses) Assuming no change in margin requirements: Margin interest should increase margin liabilities thus decrease equity and can be booked as an expense on the income statement. Margin requirements for shorts should not be booked under liabilities unless if you also book a contra-asset balancing out the equity. Ask a new question for details on this. Realized Capital Gains(Losses) Balance Sheet Identity Concepts One of the most fundamental things to remember when it comes to the balance sheet identity is that \"\"equity\"\" is derived. If your assets increase/decrease while liabilities remain constant, your equity increases/decreases. Double Entry Accounting The most fundamental concept of double entry accounting is that debits always equal credits. Here's the beauty: if things don't add up, make a new debit/credit account to account for the imbalance. This way, the imbalance is always accounted for and can help you chase it down later, the more specific the account label the better.\""
},
{
"docid": "396657",
"title": "",
"text": "The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing."
},
{
"docid": "313421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\""
},
{
"docid": "507829",
"title": "",
"text": "Basically you'd take all the companies in a given universe (like the S&P 500 or the Russell 3000) and instead of weighting them by market cap as they are currently done, you would weight by an alternative measure. Right now, if you're invested in an index that is market cap weighted, you're effectively momentum chasing. If a stock runs up, you're going to have a higher weight in your portfolio because of it (but only after the increase). An alternative that OppenheimerFunds has come up with is using revenue-weighting. That way you're using company fundamentals and only when the fundamentals are improving do you increase the weight in your portfolio. I haven't yet seen any research that explores weighting by other fundamentals. I would think that revenues aren't perfect either and that you might want to weight by Net Income. Or to go several steps further, by year over year Free Cash Flow growth. It could be a seminal paper if you are the one who empirically identifies a better weighting methodology and then have everyone else fight over the theoretical underpinnings. This is effectively what goes into Smart Beta investing: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-beta.asp"
},
{
"docid": "162884",
"title": "",
"text": "A great way to learn is by watching then doing. I run a very successful technical analysis blog, and the first thing I like to tell my readers is to find a trader online who you can connect with, then watch them trade. I particularly like Adam Hewison, Marketclub.com - This is a great website, and they offer a great deal of eduction for free, in video format. They also offer further video based education through their ino.tv partner which is paid. Here is a link that has their free daily technical analysis based stock market update in video format. Marketclub Daily Stock Market Update Corey Rosenblum, blog.afraidtotrade.com - Corey is a Chartered Market Technician, and runs a fantastic technical analysis blog the focuses on market internals and short term trades. John Lansing, Trending123.com - John is highly successful trader who uses a reliable set of indicators and patterns, and has the most amazing knack for knowing which direction the markets are headed. Many of his members are large account day traders, and you can learn tons from them as well. They have a live daily chat room that is VERY busy. The other option is to get a mentor. Just about any successful trader will be willing to teach someone who is really interested, motivated, and has the time to learn. The next thing to do once you have chosen a route of education is to start virtual trading. There are many platforms available for this, just do some research on Google. You need to develop a trading plan and methodology for dealing with the emotions of trading. While there is no replacement for making real trades, getting some up front practice can help reduce your mistakes, teach you a better traders mindset, and help you with the discipline necessary to be a successful trader."
},
{
"docid": "314300",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return."
},
{
"docid": "392041",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph: this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis. Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the \"\"PIGS\"\" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis.\""
},
{
"docid": "5054",
"title": "",
"text": "When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel."
},
{
"docid": "355620",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Case-Schiller macro derivatives market has seen very minimal activity. For example, in the three regional markets of San Diego (SDG), Boston (BOS) and Los Angeles (LAX) on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume, no trades settled, no open interest. * Source: CME Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. Why haven't these real-estate futures caught on with investors? Keep in mind that the CME introduced these indices, with support from Professor Shiller and partner Standard & Poor's several years ago. The CME seems committed to wait this out, as they have shown no indication of dropping the Case-Shiller indices. There are alternative real-estate investment securities to the Case-Shiller indices. I don't think the market of investors is so small that Case-Shiller has been, in effect, \"\"crowded out\"\" by them. I think it is more likely a matter of known quantities. Also, I don't know how well these alternatives are doing! Additional reference: CME spec's for Case-Shiller index futures and options contracts.\""
},
{
"docid": "484307",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There's an old adage in the equities business - \"\"buy on rumor, sell on fact\"\". Sometimes the strategy is to buy as soon as the rumor is out about a potential merger and then sell off into the news when it is actually announced, since this is normally when the biggest bounce occurs as part of a merger. The other part of the analysis you should do is to understand which of the companies benefits most (or is hurt the worst) by the merger and then make your play accordingly. Sometimes the company being acquired will see a bounce while the acquiring firm takes a hit, which is an indication the experts think the acquisition will be a drag on the acquiring company (perhaps because it is taking on a great deal of debt to make the acquisition, or because the acquiring firm is paying too much of a premium for what it's getting in return). Other times the exact opposite is true, where the company being acquired takes a hit while the buyer bounces, and again, the reasons for this can vary widely. If you wait until the merger is actually announced then by the time you get in, most of the premium from the announcement will likely have already been realized, and you'll be buying near the top of the market for the stock. The key is to be ahead of the other sellers by seeing the opportunities before they do and then knowing when to get out before everyone else does. Not an easy thing to pull off when you're trying to anticipate the markets, but it can be done if you do the right research and have patience. Good luck!\""
}
] |
6041 | Most effective Fundamental Analysis indicators for market entry | [
{
"docid": "241308",
"title": "",
"text": "The three places you want to focus on are the income statement, the balance sheet, and cash flow statement. The standard measure for multiple of income is the P/E or price earnings ratio For the balance sheet, the debt to equity or debt to capital (debt+equity) ratio. For cash generation, price to cash flow, or price to free cash flow. (The lower the better, all other things being equal, for all three ratios.)"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "442897",
"title": "",
"text": "I recall the name Martin Pring. As my fundamental analysis book from grad school was the work of Graham and Dodd titled Security Analysis, Pring was the author of the books I read on technical analysis. If you've not read his work, your education has a ways to go before you hit the tools."
},
{
"docid": "305242",
"title": "",
"text": "Cycle analysis indicates that the current bear market, which began in May/June, should last until late 2016 / early 2017. So if you want to trade the short side, then it's a great time to be short for the next 15-18 months."
},
{
"docid": "322070",
"title": "",
"text": "\"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\""
},
{
"docid": "475418",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Great question! A Yield Curve is a plot of the yields for different maturities of debt. This can be for any debt, but the most common used when discussing yield curves is the debt of the Federal Government. The yield curve is observed by its slope. A curve with a positive slope (up and to the right) or a steepening curve, i.e. one that's becoming more positively sloped or less negatively sloped, may indicate several different situations. The Kansas City Federal Reserve has a nice paper that summarizes various economic theories about the yield curve, and even though it's a bit dated, the theories are still valid. I'll summarize the major points here. A positively sloped yield curve can indicate expectations of inflation in the future. The longer a security has before it matures, the more opportunities it has to be affected by changes in inflation, so if investors expect inflation to occur in the future, they may demand higher yields on longer-term securities to compensate them for the additional inflationary risk. A steepening yield curve may indicate that investors are increasing their expectations of future inflation. A positively sloped yield curve may also reflect expectations of deprecation in the dollar. The publication linked before states that depreciation of the dollar may have increased the perceived risk of future exchange rate changes and discouraged purchases of long-term Treasury securities by Japanese and other foreign investors, forcing the yields on these securities higher. Supply shocks, e.g. decreases in oil prices that lead to decreased production, may cause the yield curve to steepen because they affect short-term inflation expectations significantly more than long-term inflation. For example, a decrease in oil prices may decrease short-term inflation expectations, so short-term nominal interest rates decline. Investors usually assume that long-term inflation is governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term factors like commodity price swings, so this price shock may lead short-term yields to decrease but leave long-term relatively unaffected, thus steepening the yield curve. Even if inflation expectations remain unchanged, the yield curve can still change. The supply of and demand for money affects the \"\"required real rate,\"\" i.e. the price of credit, loans, etc. The supply comes from private savings, money coming from abroad, and growth in the money supply, while demand comes from private investors and the government. The paper summarizes the effects on real rates by saying Lower private saving, declines in the real money supply, and reduced capital inflows decrease the supply of funds and raise the required real rate. A larger government deficit and stronger private investment raise the required real rate by increasing the demand for funds. The upward pressure on future real interest rates contributes to the yield curve's positive slope, and a steepening yield curve could indicate an increasing government deficit, declines in private savings, or reduced capital coming in from abroad (for example, because of a recession in Europe that reduces their demand for US imports). an easing of monetary policy when is economy is already producing near its capacity ... would initially expand the real money supply, lowering required short-term real interest rates. With long-term real interest rates unchanged, the yield curve would steepen. Lower interest rates in turn would stimulate domestic spending, putting upward pressure on prices. This upward price pressure would probably increase expected inflation, and as the first bullet point describes, this can cause long-term nominal interest rates to rise. The combination of the decline in short-term rates and the rise in long-term rates steepens the yield curve. Similarly, an inverted yield curve or a positively sloped yield curve that is becoming less steep may indicate the reverse of some or all of the above situations. For example, a rise in oil prices may increase expectations of short-term inflation, so investors demand higher interest rates on short-term debt. Because long-term inflation expectations are governed more by fundamental macroeconomic factors than short-term swings in commodity prices, long-term expectations may not rise nearly as much as short term expectations, which leads to a yield curve that is becoming less steep or even negatively sloped. Forecasting based on the curve slope is not an exact science, just one of many indicators used. Note - Yield Curve was not yet defined here and was key to my answer for What is the \"\"Bernanke Twist\"\" and \"\"Operation Twist\"\"? What exactly does it do? So I took the liberty of ask/answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "477716",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As an aside, why does it seem to be difficult to get a conclusive answer to this question? I'm going to start by trying to answer this question and I think the answer here will help answer the other questions. Here is a incomplete list of the challenges involved: So my question is, is there any evidence that value investing actually beats the market? Yes there is a lot of evidence that it works and there is a lot of evidence that it does not. timday's has a great link on this. Some rules/methods work over some periods some work during others. The most famous evidence for value investing probably comes from Fama and French who were very careful and clever in solving many of the above problems and had a large persistent data set, but their idea is very different from Damodaran's, for instance, and hard to implement though getting easier. Is the whole field a waste of time? Because of the above problems this is a hard question. Some people like Warren Buffet have clearly made a lot of money doing this. Though it is worth remembering a good amount of the money these famous investors make is off of fees for investing other peoples' money. If you understand fundamental analysis well you can get a job making a lot of money doing it for a company investing other peoples' money. The markets are very random that it is very hard for people to tell if you are good at it and since markets generally go up it is easy to claim you are making money for people, but clearly banks and hedge funds see significant value in good analysts so it is likely not entirely random. Especially if you are a good writer you can make a more money here than most other jobs. Is it worth it for the average investor saving for retirement? Very, very hard to say. Your time might be better spent on your day job if you have one. Remember because of the fees and added risk involved over say index investing more \"\"Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "355620",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Case-Schiller macro derivatives market has seen very minimal activity. For example, in the three regional markets of San Diego (SDG), Boston (BOS) and Los Angeles (LAX) on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume, no trades settled, no open interest. * Source: CME Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. Why haven't these real-estate futures caught on with investors? Keep in mind that the CME introduced these indices, with support from Professor Shiller and partner Standard & Poor's several years ago. The CME seems committed to wait this out, as they have shown no indication of dropping the Case-Shiller indices. There are alternative real-estate investment securities to the Case-Shiller indices. I don't think the market of investors is so small that Case-Shiller has been, in effect, \"\"crowded out\"\" by them. I think it is more likely a matter of known quantities. Also, I don't know how well these alternatives are doing! Additional reference: CME spec's for Case-Shiller index futures and options contracts.\""
},
{
"docid": "5054",
"title": "",
"text": "When fundamentals such as P/E make a stock look overpriced, analysts often point to other metrics. The PEG ratio, for example, can be applied to cast growth companies in a better light. Fundamental analysis is highly subjective. For further discussion on the pitfalls of fundamentals, I suggest A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel."
},
{
"docid": "272790",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\""
},
{
"docid": "254431",
"title": "",
"text": "You can do this through a journal entry in Quickbooks. It can all be entered as one entry, there's no need to do separate ones for each bill. The journal entry should debit Accounts Payable and credit your equity account. In the line for Accounts Payable, make sure to choose your name in the 'Name' column. This, in effect, enters a credit to your account, which will offset the bills that were shown there previously. The last step is to apply those credits to the bills. Even though they offset each other, your name would still show up in any Payables reports and in the Pay Bills window. To do this, open the Pay Bills window and select one of the bills owed to you. There should be an option to choose 'Apply Credits' or something similar (depends on which version of Quickbooks you are running). Choose that option, and apply credits in the amount of the bill, so that it zeroes out. Do the same for all of the other bills. Once they are all checked off, click the button to Pay Bills. This won't actually 'pay' anything, but will instead just apply the credits to the bills as indicated."
},
{
"docid": "493671",
"title": "",
"text": "\"i'm absolutely a newcomer in economics and i wish to understand how things work around finance. This is a pretty loaded question. To understand finance, you need the basics of economics. In almost every economics school in the country, you first study microeconomics and then economics. So, we'll start with micro. One of, if not the, most popular books is \"\"Principles of Microeconomics\"\" by Mankiw. This book covers the fundamentals of micro econ (opportunity, supply, demand, consumer choice, production, costs, basic game theory, and allocation of resources) in a clear and effective manner. It's designed for the novice and very easy to read. Like Mankiw's other book, \"\"Principles of Macroeconomics\"\" is also top notch. There is some overlap in key areas (i.e. opportunity cost, supply, demand, indifference curves, elasticity, taxation) because they are fundamental to economics and the overlap will always be there, but from there the book goes into key macro concepts like GDP, CPI, Employment, Monetary and Fiscal policy, and Inflation. An excellent intro primer indeed. Now that you have the fundamentals down, it's time to learn about finance. The best resource, in my opinion, is \"\"Financial Markets\"\" by Robert Shiller on Open Yale Courses. I've personally taken Prof. Shiller's class last semester, and the man is brilliant. The lectures cover every single aspect of finance and can turn the complete novice into a fairly experienced finance student. The first lecture also covers all the math required so you don't get lost at any point. Be warned, however, that the course is very deep. We used Fabozzi's textbook \"\"Foundations of Financial Markets and Institutions,\"\" which is over 600 pages deep and we were required to know essentially all of it. Watch the videos and follow the readings and you'll be a finance whiz soon! Financial Markets on Open Yale And that's your roadmap to what you want. There are other economics books and it's true that the first few chapters of both Mankiw books are largely the same, but that's because any economics course always covers the basics first. If you want to look at other books, Krugman has written some good books as well. Be sure to read reviews because some books are meant for 2nd/3rd year econ students, so you don't want to get a too advanced book. At the novice level, we're interested in understanding the basic concepts so we can master Fabozzi. As for finance books - Fabozzi teaches you all the fundamentals of financial markets so you've got a powerful foundation. From there you can expand to more niche books such as books on investing or on monetary policy or whatever you want. Best of luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "398960",
"title": "",
"text": "From http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Fundamentals The facts that affect a company's underlying value. Examples of business fundamentals include debt, cash flow, supply of and demand for the company's products, and so forth. For instance, if a company does not have a sufficient supply of products, it will fail. Likewise, demand for the product must remain at a certain level in order for it to be successful. Strong business fundamentals are considered essential for long-term success and stability. See also: Value Investing, Fundamental Analysis. For a stock the basic fundamentals are the second column of numbers you see on the google finance summary page, P/E ratio, div/yeild, EPS, shares, beta. For the company itself it's generally the stuff on the 'financials' link (e.g. things in the quarterly and annual report, debt, liabilities, assets, earnings, profit etc."
},
{
"docid": "377186",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to invest in the stock market, whether over a shorter period of 1 to 2 years or over a longer period of 10 or 20 years or longer you need to take some precautions and have a written investment plan with a risk management strategy incorporated in your plan. Others have said that 1 to 2 years is too short to invest in the stock market as the stock market can have a correction and fall by 50%. But it doesn't matter if you invest for 1 year or if you invest for 50 years, the stock market can still fall by 50% just before you plan to withdraw your funds. What you need to figure out is a way to get out before the market falls by 40% to 50%. A simple way to do this is to use technical indicators to warn you when a market trend is starting to change and that it is time to get out of the market. Two simple indicators you can use on a market index are the Rate of Change (ROC) indicator and the 100 week Moving Average (MA). Below is a 10 year weekly chart of the S&P500 with these two indicators charted. They show good times to get into the market and good times to get out. If you are using the 100 week MA you would buy in when the price crosses above the MA line and sell when the price crosses below the MA line. If you are using the ROC indicator you would buy in when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. So your investment plan could be to buy an Index ETF representing the S&P500 when the ROC moves above zero and sell when it crosses below zero. You can also place a trailing stop loss of 10% to protect you in case of a sudden fall over a couple of days. You can manage your investments in as little as 10 minutes per week by checking the chart once per week and adjusting your stop loss order. If you want to progressively add to your investment each month you could check the charts and only add any new funds if both the ROC is above zero and sloping upwards. Another option for adding new funds could be if the price is above the MA and moving further away from the MA. All these rules should be incorporated into your investment plan so that you are not basing your decisions based on emotions. There are many other Technical Analysis Indicators you could also learn about to make better educated decisions about your stock market investments. However, what I have provided here is enough for anyone to test over different indexes and time frames and do their own paper trading on to gain some confidence before placing any real money on the table."
},
{
"docid": "297376",
"title": "",
"text": "I was referring to insider information as a seperate means of profiting. So I assumed: 1. Fundamental analysis/picking the direction 2. Insider information 3. Gaming the market (illiquid markets) If this is true. What makes a good market maker? Stoploss/takeprofit management and hope there are enough players in it *not* to win it (i.e. hedge positions) to take profit from? Sounds very luck base or is there something im missing? Thanks"
},
{
"docid": "48946",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\""
},
{
"docid": "148684",
"title": "",
"text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\""
},
{
"docid": "598238",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\""
},
{
"docid": "67229",
"title": "",
"text": "Mostly some custom work i've done myself, bayesian and time series models, but there is some pattern matching. Most TA functions such as MA's, MACD's, BollingerBands, are simple ways of doing time series analysis. MA's are basic filters. MACD is essentially a way of viewing acceleration, as its the informational difference between filters. BB's are mean reverters based on standard deviation/ RSI is a ratio of filtered up to down moves basically generating an indicator based on how strong the market has moved."
},
{
"docid": "392041",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph: this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis. Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the \"\"PIGS\"\" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis.\""
},
{
"docid": "404529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\""
}
] |
6041 | Most effective Fundamental Analysis indicators for market entry | [
{
"docid": "81655",
"title": "",
"text": "Fundamental Analysis can be used to help you determine what to buy, but they won't give you an entry signal for when to buy. Technical Analysis can be used to help you determine when to buy, and can give you entry signals for when to buy. There are many Technical Indicator which can be used as an entry signal, from as simple as the price crossing above a moving average line and then selling when the price crosses back below the moving average line, to as complicated as using a combination of indicators to all line up for an entry signal to be valid. You need to find the entry signals that would suit your investing or trading and incorporate them as part of your trading plan. If you want to learn more about entry signals you are better off learning more about Technical Analysis."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "51218",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is a white paper on \"\"The weekend effect of equity options\"\" it is a good paper and shows that (for the most part) option values do lose money from Friday to Monday. Which makes sense because it is getting closer to expiration. Of course this not something that can be counted on 100%. If there is some bad news and the stock opens down on a Monday the puts would have increased and the calls decreased in value. Article Summary (from the authors): \"\"We find that returns on options on individual equities display markedly lower returns over weekends (Friday close to Monday close) relative to any other day of the week. These patterns are observed both in unhedged and delta-hedged positions, indicating that the effect is not the result of a weekend effect in the underlying securities. We find even stronger weekend effects in implied volatilities, but only after an adjustment to quote implied volatilities in terms of trading days rather than calendar days.\"\" \"\"Our results hold for puts and calls over a wide range of maturities and strike prices, for both equally weighted portfolios and for portfolios weighted by the market value of open interest, and also for samples that include only the most liquid options in the market. We find no evidence of a weekly seasonal in bid-ask spreads, trading volume, or open interest that could drive the effect. We also find little evidence that weekend returns are driven by higher levels of risk over the weekend. \"\"The effect is particularly strong over expiration weekends, and it is also present to a lesser degree over mid-week holidays. Finally, the effect is stronger when the TED spread and market volatility are high, which we interpret as providing support for a limits to arbitrage explanation for the persistence of the effect.\"\" - Christopher S. Jones & Joshua Shemes You can read more about this at this link for Memphis.edu\""
},
{
"docid": "588774",
"title": "",
"text": "Include warnings that these numbers are estimates and are not adjusted for the market impact and tax impact of selling these shares. They need to stop pondering to the followers of the Prosperity Theology and get their analysis changed. Going to the shareholders page and just adding up their shares in comparison to the current price is lazy and not a good indicator."
},
{
"docid": "169076",
"title": "",
"text": "It is called the Monday Effect or the Weekend Effect. There are a number of similar theories including the October Effect and January Effect. It's all pretty much bunk. If there were any truth to traders would be all over it and the resulting market forces would wipe it out. Personally, I think all technical analysis has very little value other than to fuel conversations at dinner parties about investments. You might also consider reading about Market efficiency to see further discussion about why technical approaches like this might, but probably don't work."
},
{
"docid": "180644",
"title": "",
"text": "Your question is a bit odd in that you are mixing long-term fundamental analysis signals which are generally meant to work on longer time frames with medium term trading where these fundamental signals are mostly irrelevant. Generally you would buy-and-hold on a fundamental signal and ride the short-term fluctuations if you believe you have done good analysis. If you would like to trade on the 2-6 month time scale you would need a signal that works on that sort of time scale. Some people believe that technical analysis can give you those kind of signals, but there are many, many, many different technical signals and how you would trade using them is highly dependent on which one you believe works. Some people do mix fundamental and technical signals, but that can be very complicated. Learning a good amount about technical analysis could get you started. I will note, though, that studies of non-professionals continuously show that the more frequently people trade the more on they underperform on average in the long term when compared with people that buy-and-hold. An aside on technical analysis: michael's comment is generally correct though not well explained. Say Bob found a technical signal that works and he believes that a stock that costs $10 dollars should be $11. He buys it and makes money two months later when the rest of the market figures out the right price is $11 and he sells at that price. This works a bunch of times and he now publishes how the signal works on Stack Exchange to show everyone how awesome he is. Next time, Bob's signal finds a different stock at $10 that should be $11, but Anna just wrote a computer program that checks that signal Bob published faster than he ever could. The computer program buys as much as it can in milliseconds until the price is $11. Bob goes to buy, but now it is too late the price is already $11 and he can't make any money. Eventually, people learn to anticipate/adjust for this signal and even Anna's algorithms don't even work anymore and the hunt for new signals starts again."
},
{
"docid": "162884",
"title": "",
"text": "A great way to learn is by watching then doing. I run a very successful technical analysis blog, and the first thing I like to tell my readers is to find a trader online who you can connect with, then watch them trade. I particularly like Adam Hewison, Marketclub.com - This is a great website, and they offer a great deal of eduction for free, in video format. They also offer further video based education through their ino.tv partner which is paid. Here is a link that has their free daily technical analysis based stock market update in video format. Marketclub Daily Stock Market Update Corey Rosenblum, blog.afraidtotrade.com - Corey is a Chartered Market Technician, and runs a fantastic technical analysis blog the focuses on market internals and short term trades. John Lansing, Trending123.com - John is highly successful trader who uses a reliable set of indicators and patterns, and has the most amazing knack for knowing which direction the markets are headed. Many of his members are large account day traders, and you can learn tons from them as well. They have a live daily chat room that is VERY busy. The other option is to get a mentor. Just about any successful trader will be willing to teach someone who is really interested, motivated, and has the time to learn. The next thing to do once you have chosen a route of education is to start virtual trading. There are many platforms available for this, just do some research on Google. You need to develop a trading plan and methodology for dealing with the emotions of trading. While there is no replacement for making real trades, getting some up front practice can help reduce your mistakes, teach you a better traders mindset, and help you with the discipline necessary to be a successful trader."
},
{
"docid": "496059",
"title": "",
"text": "> All of the products that are replacing them by this analysis are more expensive, which indicates they're probably capturing a different sector of the market. They're probably segmenting the market, not capturing a different market. When I would have gone to Burger King in the past, I now go to a gourmet burger joint."
},
{
"docid": "313421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\""
},
{
"docid": "404529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\""
},
{
"docid": "205791",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, the balance sheet is where assets, liabilities, & equity live. Balance Sheet Identity: Assets = Liabilities (+ Equity) The income statement is where income and expenses live. General Income Statement Identity: Income = Revenue - Expenses If you want to model yourself correctly (like a business), change your \"\"income\"\" account to \"\"revenue\"\". Recognized & Realized If you haven't yet closed the position, your gain/loss is \"\"recognized\"\". If you have closed the position, it's \"\"realized\"\". Recognized Capital Gains(Losses) Assuming no change in margin requirements: Margin interest should increase margin liabilities thus decrease equity and can be booked as an expense on the income statement. Margin requirements for shorts should not be booked under liabilities unless if you also book a contra-asset balancing out the equity. Ask a new question for details on this. Realized Capital Gains(Losses) Balance Sheet Identity Concepts One of the most fundamental things to remember when it comes to the balance sheet identity is that \"\"equity\"\" is derived. If your assets increase/decrease while liabilities remain constant, your equity increases/decreases. Double Entry Accounting The most fundamental concept of double entry accounting is that debits always equal credits. Here's the beauty: if things don't add up, make a new debit/credit account to account for the imbalance. This way, the imbalance is always accounted for and can help you chase it down later, the more specific the account label the better.\""
},
{
"docid": "598238",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\""
},
{
"docid": "310476",
"title": "",
"text": "The Bible of fundamental analysis was written by Graham and Dodd, and is titled Security Analysis. If you don't know the name Benjamin Graham, Warren Buffet was his student and attribute his own success to Graham. If Security Analysis is a bit too intense for you, Graham also wrote The Intelligent Investor which is probably a better starting point."
},
{
"docid": "32615",
"title": "",
"text": "\"P/E alone would not work very well. See for example http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/peak2pk.htm and http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/profitmargins.htm (in short, P/E is affected too much by cyclical changes in profit margins, or you might say: booms inflate the E beyond sustainable levels, thus making the P/E look more favorable than it is). Here's a random blog post that points to Schiller's normalized earnings measure: http://seekingalpha.com/article/247257-s-p-500-is-expensive-using-normalized-earnings I think even Price to Sales is supposed to work better than P/E for predicting 10-year returns on a broad index, because it effectively normalizes the margins. (Normalized valuation explains the variance in 10-year returns better than the variance in 1-year returns, I think I've read; you can't rely on things \"\"reverting to mean\"\" in only 1 year.) Another issue with P/E is that E is more subject to weird accounting effects than for example revenues. For example whether stock compensation is expensed or one-time write-offs are included or whatever can mean you end up with an economically strange earnings number. btw, a simple way to do what you describe here would be to put a chunk of money into funds that vary equity exposure. For example John Hussman's fund has an elaborate model that he uses to decide when to hedge. Say you invest 40% bonds, 40% stocks, and 20% in Hussman Strategic Growth. When Hussman fully hedges his fund, you would effectively have 40% in stocks; and when he fully unhedges it, you would have 60% in stocks. This isn't quite the whole story; he also tries to pick up some gains through stock picking, so when fully hedged the fund isn't quite equivalent to cash, more like a market-neutral fund. (For Hussman Funds in particular, he's considered stocks to be overvalued for most of the last 15 years, and the fund is almost always fully hedged, so you'd want to be comfortable with that.) There are other funds out there doing similar stuff. There are certainly funds that vary equity exposure though most not as dramatically as the Hussman fund. Some possibilities might be PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority, PIMCO Multi-Asset, perhaps. Or just some value-oriented funds with willingness to deviate from benchmarks. Definitely read the prospectus on all these and research other options, I just thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of specific examples. If you wanted to stick to managing ETFs yourself, Morningstar's premium service has an interesting feature where they take the by-hand bottom-up analysis of all the stocks in an ETF, and use that to calculate an over- or under-valuation ratio for the ETF. I don't know if the Morningstar bottom-up stuff necessarily works; I'm sure they make the \"\"pro\"\" case on their site. On the \"\"con\"\" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean. If you're rich, I think you can hire GMO to do a varied-equity-exposure strategy for you (http://www.gmo.com/America/). You could also look at the \"\"fundamental indexing\"\" ETFs that weight by dividends or P/E or other measures of value, rather than by market cap. The bottom line is, there are lots of ways to do tactical asset allocation. It seems complex enough that I'm not sure it's something you'd want to manage yourself. There are also a lot of managers doing this that I personally am not comfortable with because they don't seem to have a discipline or method that they explain well enough, or they don't seem to do enough backtesting and math, or they rely on macroeconomic forecasts that probably aren't reliable, or whatever. All of these tactical allocation strategies are flavors of active management. I'm most comfortable with active management when it has a fairly objective, testable, and logical discipline to it, such as Graham&Buffett style value investing, Hussman's statistical methods, or whatever it is. Many people will argue that all active management is bad and there's no way to distinguish among any of it. I am not in that camp, but I do think a lot of active managers are bad, and that it's pretty hard to distinguish among them, and I think active management is more likely to help with risk control than it is to help with beating the market. Still you should know (and probably already do know, but I'll note for other readers) that there's a strong argument smart people make that you're best off avoiding this whole line of tactical-allocation thinking and just sticking to the pure cap-based index funds.\""
},
{
"docid": "216757",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\""
},
{
"docid": "25817",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index. Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting down in the index. Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The \"\"Composite Index\"\",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current 500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In 1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation. The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957. Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index. Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: \"\"In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,\"\" said David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones.\""
},
{
"docid": "272790",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In a cap-weighted fund, the fund itself isn't buying or selling at all (except to support redemptions or purchases of the fund). As the value of a stock in the index goes up, then its value in the fund goes up naturally. This is the advantage of a cap-weighted fund, that it doesn't have to trade (buy and sell), it just sits on the stocks. That makes a cap-weighted fund inexpensive (low trading costs) and tax-efficient (doesn't trigger capital gains due to sales). The buying high and selling low referred to by \"\"fundamental indexation\"\" advocates like Wisdom Tree is buying high and selling low on the part of the investor. That is, when you purchase the market-cap-weighted fund, at that time that you purchase, you will spend more on the higher-priced stocks, just because they account for more of the value of the fund, and less money goes to the cheaper stocks which account for less of the value of the fund. In the prospectus for a fund they should tell you which index they use, and if the prospectus doesn't describe the weighting of the index, you could do a web search for the index name and find out how that index is constructed. A market-cap-weighted fund is the standard kind of weighting which is what you get if you buy the stocks in the index and then hold them without buying or selling. Most of the famous indexes (e.g. S&P500) are cap-weighted, with the notable exception of the Dow Jones Industrial Average which is \"\"price-weighted\"\" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-weighted_index. Price-weighting is just an archaic tradition, not something one would use for a new index design today. A fund weighted by \"\"fundamentals\"\" or equal-weighted, rather than cap-weighted, is effectively doing a kind of rebalancing, selling what's gone up to buy more of what's gone down. Rather than buying an exotic fund, you could get a similar effect by buying a balanced fund (one that mixes stocks and bonds). Then when stocks go up, your fund would sell them and buy bonds, and the fund would sell the most of the highest-market-cap stocks that make up more of the index. And vice versa of course. But the fundamental-weighted funds are fine, the more important considerations include your stocks vs. bonds percentages (asset allocation) and whether you make irrational trades instead of sticking to a plan.\""
},
{
"docid": "557877",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \"\"long term investors\"\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\""
},
{
"docid": "385949",
"title": "",
"text": "All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin) He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects. How often does a utility go out of business? I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company? A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals? Absolutely. You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do."
},
{
"docid": "148684",
"title": "",
"text": "\"duffbeer's answers are reasonable for the specific question asked, but it seems to me the questioner is really wanting to know what stocks should I buy, by asking \"\"do you simply listen to 'experts' and hope they are right?\"\" Basic fundamental analysis techniques like picking stocks with a low PE or high dividend yield are probably unlikely to give returns much above the average market because many other people are applying the same well-known techniques.\""
},
{
"docid": "314300",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have been putting savings away for the longer term and have some extra funds which you would like to take some extra risk on - then I say work yourself out a strategy/plan, get yourself educated and go for it. If it is individual shares you are interested then work out if you prefer to use fundamental analysis, technical analysis or some of both. You can use fundamental analysis to help determine which shares to buy, and then use technical analysis to help determine when to get into and out of a position. You say you are prepared to lose $10,000 in order to try to get higher returns. I don't know what percentage this $10,000 is of the capital you intend to use in this kind of investments/trading, but lets assume it is 10% - so your total starting capital would be $100,000. The idea now would be to learn about money management, position sizing and risk management. There are plenty of good books on these subjects. If you set a maximum loss for each position you open of 1% of your capital - i.e $1,000, then you would have to get 10 straight losses in a row to get to your 10% total loss. You do this by setting stop losses on your positions. I'll use an example to explain: Say you are looking at a stock priced at $20 and you get a signal to buy it at that price. You now need to determine a stop price which if the stock goes down to, you can say well I may have been wrong on this occasion, the stock price has gone against me so I need to get out now (I put automatic stop loss conditional orders with my broker). You may determine the stop price based on previous support levels, using a percentage of your buy price or another indicator or method. I tend to use the percentage of buy price - lets say you use 10% - so your stop price would be at $18 (10% below your buy price of $20). So now you can work out your position size (the number of shares to buy). Your maximum loss on the position is $2 per share or 10% of your position in this stock, but it should also be only 1% of your total capital - being 1% of $100,000 = $1,000. You simply divide $1,000 by $2 to get 500 shares to buy. You then do this with the rest of your positions - with a $100,000 starting capital using a 1% maximum loss per position and a stop loss of 10% you will end up with a maximum of 10 positions. If you use a larger maximum loss per position your position sizes would increase and you would have less positions to open (I would not go higher than 2% maximum loss per position). If you use a larger stop loss percentage then your position sizes would decrease and you would have more positions to open. The larger the stop loss the longer you will potentially be in a position and the smaller the stop loss generally the less time you will be in a position. Also as your total capital increases so will your 1% of total capital, just as it would decrease if your total capital decreases. Using this method you can aim for higher risk/ higher return investments and reduce and manage your risk to a desired level. One other thing to consider, don't let tax determine when you sell an investment. If you are keeping a stock just so you will pay less tax if kept for over 12 months - then you are in real danger of increasing your risk considerably. I would rather pay 50% tax on a 30% return than 25% tax on a 15% return."
}
] |
6080 | Is ScholarShare a legitimate entity for a 529 plan in California? | [
{
"docid": "164513",
"title": "",
"text": "To mhoran's point, yes, the company, TIAA-CREF is valid. I'd focus on the expenses - Their S&P fund (Index US Large Cap Equity Portfolio) shows a .11% total fee. You might choose this one, or others, but this number looks great to me. We are in an investment world where fees are still often over 1%, and we are conditioned to think anything less is a good fee. For me, the goal is less than .25% in your retirement fund, college savings, etc."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "433817",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \"\"too big to fail\"\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\""
},
{
"docid": "417388",
"title": "",
"text": "The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on."
},
{
"docid": "339955",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know of any financial account that offers that kind of protection. I'm going to echo @Brick and say that if you need that level of restrictions on the money, you should talk to a lawyer. Your only option may be to setup a trust. If you are willing to go with a lower level of restrictions on the account, a 529 plan could do the job. A 529 Plan is an education savings plan operated by a state or educational institution designed to help families set aside funds for future college costs. It will be in your daughters name, and has the benefit of being tax advantaged, unless its used for non educational expenses. Since your daughter is a minor, there would have to be a custodian for the account that manages it on her behalf. The penalty for using it for non educational expenses might suffice to keep the custodian from draining the account, and I believe the custodian has a fiduciary duty to the account holder, which would open them up to lawsuits if the custodian did act in a way that was detrimental to your child."
},
{
"docid": "212131",
"title": "",
"text": "Summarized article: Recent mishaps causing supply disruptions at 14 California refineries caused wholesale gas prices to reach an all-time high of $4.39 per gallon. Local gas stations increased prices to 30 cents or more per gallon overnight, with some stations charging as much as $5.79 per gallon. Some stations chose not to buy high-priced wholesale gas for fear they wouldn't be able to sell it. While others shut off their pumps after they ran out of the gas they bought at lower wholesale prices. Some of the refinery mishaps include an oil pipeline problem, a power outage at Exxon Mobil Corp's Torrance refinery and a shutdown of the crude distillation unit at Chevron Corp's Richmond refinery. It is unknown when wholesale prices will come down but one solution may be to allow refineries to switch over from the summer blend to the cheaper winter blend earlier than planned. The California Energy Commission is considering the idea but notes an early switch over could impact air quality. The summer blend reduces evaporation of pollutants during warm weather which would be less damaging to air quality in California's current heat wave. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit"
},
{
"docid": "588345",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\""
},
{
"docid": "104336",
"title": "",
"text": "The way deductions work normally does not take into account what account the transaction was made using. I.e. you report your gross income, your deductions and they subtract the deductions from the income. What's left is your taxable income. The tricky part comes with pre-tax contributions to tax advantaged accounts (like 401(k)). Those plans require the contributions to be made by your company. Since contributions to 529 plans are not deductible on your federal income taxes, the money is not going to be directly deposited. So it does not matter how the money goes into the plan. Just make sure you keep a record of your contributions."
},
{
"docid": "590310",
"title": "",
"text": "Alright, team! I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3). The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on. What part of the SE tax is that? I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%. (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan. A business entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k). A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline."
},
{
"docid": "131297",
"title": "",
"text": "Limiting liability to your investment is one of the main points of corporations. When you contract with a corporation you know that all you can get if the corporation defaults is the assets owned by the corporation, not the owners of said corp. There are plenty of covenants debtholders can put in place to restrain management from making decisions that can be detrimental to said debtholders. >So here is a case of a legitimate lawsuit, it was heard in court and Rich Dad was ordered to pay $24 Million to his former partner(s). It seems that the corporation was ordered to pay, no? The man does not claim he can't pay it, he claims the corporate entity that is supposed to pay it can't pay it. I don't think the opposing side ever had an agreement with Kiyosaki on a personal level. This man probably runs several businesses, there is a chance some may go under. It is a legitimate tactic to insulate each business from one another. The debtholders know this ahead of time and receive extra yield on their investment for taking these easily identifiable risks. If you don't want to invest with someone who doesn't have skin in the game, all you have to do is don't invest."
},
{
"docid": "231254",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is an answer grounded in reality, not advice. Most states have no means of enforcing their foreign business entity registration statutes. Some states never even codified consequences. (California is a notable exception.). Some states have 'business licenses' that you need in order to defend your entity in court, but will retroactively apply the corporate veil when you get the license. The \"\"do I have to register\"\" question is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut. But this doesn't absolve you of looking in the mirror (doing your research). Registration and INCOME taxes are different stories. If a state calls their fee a franchise tax and it is applicable and there are real consequences for not, then you will have to pay that tax. Anyway, this isn't advocating breaking the law, but since it describes ignoring toothless state-chartered agencies, then there are people that will disagree with this post, despite being in line with business climate in the United States. Hope that helps\""
},
{
"docid": "547087",
"title": "",
"text": "You are faced with a dilemma. If you use a 529 plan to fund your education, the short timeline of a few years will limit your returns that are tax free. Most people who use a 529 plan either purchase years of tuition via lump sum, when the child is young; or they put aside money on a regular basis that will grow tax deferred/tax free. Some states do give a tax break when the contribution is made by a state taxpayer into a plan run by the state. The long term plans generally use a risk profile that starts off heavily weighted in stock when the child is young, and becomes more fixed income as the child reaches their high school years. The idea is to protect the fund from big losses when there is no time to recover. If you choose the plan with the least risk the issue is that the amount of gains that are being protected from federal tax is small. If you pick a more aggressive plan the risk is that the losses could be larger than the state tax savings. Look at some of the other tax breaks for tuition to see if you qualify Credits An education credit helps with the cost of higher education by reducing the amount of tax owed on your tax return. If the credit reduces your tax to less than zero, you may get a refund. There are two education credits available: the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. Who Can Claim an Education Credit? There are additional rules for each credit, but you must meet all three of the following for either credit: If you’re eligible to claim the lifetime learning credit and are also eligible to claim the American opportunity credit for the same student in the same year, you can choose to claim either credit, but not both. You can't claim the AOTC if you were a nonresident alien for any part of the tax year unless you elect to be treated as a resident alien for federal tax purposes. For more information about AOTC and foreign students, visit American Opportunity Tax Credit - Information for Foreign Students. Deductions Tuition and Fees Deduction You may be able to deduct qualified education expenses paid during the year for yourself, your spouse or your dependent. You cannot claim this deduction if your filing status is married filing separately or if another person can claim an exemption for you as a dependent on his or her tax return. The qualified expenses must be for higher education. The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. This deduction, reported on Form 8917, Tuition and Fees Deduction, is taken as an adjustment to income. This means you can claim this deduction even if you do not itemize deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040). This deduction may be beneficial to you if, for example, you cannot take the lifetime learning credit because your income is too high. You may be able to take one of the education credits for your education expenses instead of a tuition and fees deduction. You can choose the one that will give you the lower tax."
},
{
"docid": "443828",
"title": "",
"text": "US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects."
},
{
"docid": "87350",
"title": "",
"text": "From Kiplinger: Can the money be used at a foreign college? You can use the money at hundreds of foreign colleges, including the University of Toronto, McGill in Montreal and many other Canadian schools. If U.S. students at the school qualify for federal financial aid, you can use 529-plan or ESA money to pay the bills without worrying that you'll lose any of the tax benefits."
},
{
"docid": "545184",
"title": "",
"text": "As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed."
},
{
"docid": "4006",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're ready to start a 529 account, it makes a big difference which state you choose (some states have excessive fees). It doesn't have to be your own state, but some states give you tax incentives to stay in-state. What you need to do is check out Clark Howard's 529 Guide and check to see if your state is in the \"\"good\"\" list. If not, then pick out a good state.\""
},
{
"docid": "8542",
"title": "",
"text": "Please either remove the $50 going to the 529 plan or move it into a ROTH IRA instead. You can always use your ROTH contributions to pay for college expenses in the future if you want to. I suspect you may not have enough saved up for retirement to have the luxury to help with college though."
},
{
"docid": "439010",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be preferable to purchase a bond with a negative yield if the negative yield was the smallest compared to similar financial securities. The purchase or sale of a security is rarely a mutually exclusive event. An individual may have personal reasons or a desire to contribute to the activity the bond is financing. To an entity, the negative yield bond may be part of a cost averaging plan, diversification strategy, a single leg of a multi-leg transaction, or possibly to aid certainty as a hedge in a pairs trade. And of course there may be other unique situations specific to the entity. Said another way, is the Queen of Spades a good card? It depends on the game being played and what is in your hand."
},
{
"docid": "135128",
"title": "",
"text": "From my limited experience, having taken a class on Bankruptcy in order to become a paralegal, Chapter 11 is the portion of the Bankruptcy Code that allows certain corporate entities to reorganize. Basically, the entity files for bankruptcy protection to halt credit collections or any number of reasons, and then work with the courts to get out. If the entity can put together a reasonable sounding restructuring plan, the court may allow them to do it. A restructuring plan essentially is a plan of who to pay back, when, and by what means (this is seriously a simple explanation, it's much more complex than this). So if the Court approves the plan, the entity will attempt to carry it out and come out of bankruptcy several years down the road in a more solvent position. If the Court rejects the plan or the plan fails, then the entity has to then engage in Chapter 7 proceedings (selling assets to pay off debts)."
},
{
"docid": "478987",
"title": "",
"text": "From a federal tax point of view, withdrawals from 529 plans are treated as taxable unless they are used on qualified expenses: The part of a distribution representing the amount paid or contributed to a QTP does not have to be included in income. This is a return of the investment in the plan. The designated beneficiary generally does not have to include in income any earnings distributed from a QTP if the total distribution is less than or equal to adjusted qualified education expenses (defined under Figuring the Taxable Portion of a Distribution , later). [...] To determine if total distributions for the year are more or less than the amount of qualified education expenses, you must compare the total of all QTP distributions for the tax year to the adjusted qualified education expenses. You'll have to include them in your income and pay normal income tax on them, and also in most cases pay an extra 10% penalty: Generally, if you receive a taxable distribution, you also must pay a 10% additional tax on the amount included in income. You'd have to check on the situation from a state perspective but I'd imagine it's quite similar. The basic point is that non-qualified distributions are treated as earnings."
},
{
"docid": "303411",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends on the State. In California, for example, you pay a franchise tax of $800 every year just for having LLC, and in addition to that - income tax on gross revenue. But in other States (like Wyoming, for example) there's no taxes at all, only registration fees (which may still amount to ~$100-300 a year). IRS doesn't care about LLC's at all (unless you chose to treat is as a corporation). You need to understand that in the US we have the \"\"Federal Government\"\" (IRS is part of that) and the \"\"State Government\"\" that deals with business entities, in each of the 50 States. Since you're talking about Italy, and not EU, you should similarly be talking about the relevant State, and not US.\""
}
] |
6080 | Is ScholarShare a legitimate entity for a 529 plan in California? | [
{
"docid": "22856",
"title": "",
"text": "For a parent deciding on contributing to a 529 plan the first consideration is the plan run by the state government that will trigger a state income tax deduction. You do have to at least look at the annual fees for the program before jumping into the state program, but for many people the state program offers the best deal because of the state tax deduction. Unfortunately for you California does not offer a state tax deduction for 529 plan contributions. Which means that you can pick another states program if the fees are more reasonable or if the investing options are better. You can even select a nationwide plan unaffiliated with a state. Scholarshare is run by TIAA-CREF. TIAA-CREF is a large company that runs pension and 403(b) funds for many state and local governments. Many teacher unions use them. They are legitimately authorized by the state of California: The ScholarShare Investment Board sets investment policies and oversees all activities of ScholarShare, the state’s 529 college investment plan. The program enables Californians to save for college by putting money in tax-advantaged investments. After-tax contributions allow earnings to grow tax-deferred, and disbursements, when used for tuition and other qualified expenses, are federal and state tax-free. The ScholarShare Plan is managed by TIAA-CREF Tuition Financing, Inc. The ScholarShare Investment Board also oversees the Governor’s Scholarship Programs and California Memorial Scholarship Program. note: before picking a plan from another state make sure that they allow outside contributions."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "115175",
"title": "",
"text": "One big advantage that the 529 plan has is that most operate like a target date fund. As the child approaches college age the investment becomes more conservative. While you can do this by changing the mix of investments, you can't do it without capital gains taxes. Many of the issues you are concerned about are addressed: they are usable by other family members, they don't hurt financial aid offers, they address scholarships, they can be used for books or room and board. Many states also give you a tax break in the year of the contribution."
},
{
"docid": "70860",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you have a good start understanding the ESA. $2k limit per child per year. The other choice is a 529 account which has a much higher limit. You can deposit up to 5 years worth of gifting per child, or $65k per child from you and another $65k from your wife. Sounds great, right? The downside is the 529 typically has fewer investment options, and doesn't allow for individual stocks. The S&P fund in my 529 costs me nearly 1% per year, in the ESA, .1%. the ESA has to be used by age 30, the 529 can be held indefinitely."
},
{
"docid": "9568",
"title": "",
"text": "That may become complicated depending on the State laws. In some States (California for example), LLCs are taxed on gross receipts, so you'll be paying taxes on paying money to yourself. In other States this would be a no-op since the LLC is disregarded. So you need to check your State law. I assume the LLC is not taxed as a corporation since that would be really stupid of course, but if it is then it adds the complexity of the Federal taxes on top as well (corporate entity will pay taxes on your rent, and you'll pay taxes on your dividends to get the money back). The best option would be to take that property out of the LLC (since there's no point in it anyway, if you're the tenant)."
},
{
"docid": "428502",
"title": "",
"text": "You can open a 529 plan for your child. The minimum contribution for my state is only $25. You can setup automatic deposits, or deposit money only a few times a year; or both. You can save money on state taxes, and the money grows tax free if the money is used for educational expenses. They generally have age based portfolios, but some also let you pick from a variety of portfolios."
},
{
"docid": "145787",
"title": "",
"text": "Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k. If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work. But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here. The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses. Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses. The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours."
},
{
"docid": "271266",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\""
},
{
"docid": "108775",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It becomes \"\"yours\"\" when it leaves the trust. Until that point the Trust owns the shares attributable to your account. There are some different arrangements out there, in the cases of some of the smaller 401(k) providers, where the assets are held in annuity products, or even individual annuities in the case of 403(b) plans. To further answer the question, the trust and trustee own and hold the account before you take a distribution. In a lot of cases the 401(k) recordkeeper has a trust company that they use to serve as the custodian (person or entity who retains the assets). In some plans you have an individual Trustee or a Corporate Trustee. Those setups are not good for that person or company because they are ultimately responsible for backing the assets in the plan, and as you can imagine, leaving that responsibility to one person is not safe for that individual. Hope that helps, glad to answer any other questions you have!\""
},
{
"docid": "292572",
"title": "",
"text": "I was in a similar situation and my method was this: since I already had a fidelity 401k account it was pretty easy to open a individual account through the website. From there you can just put the money into a general market mutual fund or exchange traded fund. I prefer low expense ratio funds like passive indexed funds since studies show that there isn't much benefit to actively traded funds. So I just put my money into the popular, low fee fund SPY which tracks to the S&P 500. I plan on leaving the money there for at least a year, if not several years, so I can pay the lower capital gains tax rate on any gains and avoid paying the commissions too many times. In your situation you might want to consider using the extra cash to max out you and your wife's 401k this year, since you aren't already taking full advantage of that. Often people recommend saving 10% or 15% of gross income throughout their career for retirement, so you're on the low side and maybe have a small bit of catch up to do. Finally you could also start a 529 education saving plan to save for kid's future college cost."
},
{
"docid": "57486",
"title": "",
"text": "\"SOS stands for Secretary of State. The California Department of State handles the business entities registration, and the website is here. See \"\"Forms\"\" in the navigation menu on the left. Specifically, you'll be looking for LLC-5.\""
},
{
"docid": "443828",
"title": "",
"text": "US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects."
},
{
"docid": "586035",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a partial answer. Coverdell ESA must be withdrawn when the beneficiary turns 30. The 529 has no such age restriction. A decent comparison is at Coverdell Education Savings Accounts a wiki entry at the Bogleheads site. To add another point, the Coverdell limit is $2000 per year deposit, the 529 is subject only to the rules of gift taxation, so a couple can deposit up to $140K this year, taking advantage of the ability to gift ahead, and while paperwork is due to declare the gift, no tax is assessed."
},
{
"docid": "8542",
"title": "",
"text": "Please either remove the $50 going to the 529 plan or move it into a ROTH IRA instead. You can always use your ROTH contributions to pay for college expenses in the future if you want to. I suspect you may not have enough saved up for retirement to have the luxury to help with college though."
},
{
"docid": "135128",
"title": "",
"text": "From my limited experience, having taken a class on Bankruptcy in order to become a paralegal, Chapter 11 is the portion of the Bankruptcy Code that allows certain corporate entities to reorganize. Basically, the entity files for bankruptcy protection to halt credit collections or any number of reasons, and then work with the courts to get out. If the entity can put together a reasonable sounding restructuring plan, the court may allow them to do it. A restructuring plan essentially is a plan of who to pay back, when, and by what means (this is seriously a simple explanation, it's much more complex than this). So if the Court approves the plan, the entity will attempt to carry it out and come out of bankruptcy several years down the road in a more solvent position. If the Court rejects the plan or the plan fails, then the entity has to then engage in Chapter 7 proceedings (selling assets to pay off debts)."
},
{
"docid": "509318",
"title": "",
"text": "You won't be able to avoid the $800 fee. CA FTB has a very specific example, which is identical to your situation (except that they use NV instead of AZ), to show that the LLC has liability in California. State of formation is of no matter, you'll just be liable for fees in that state in addition to the CA fees. This is in fact a very common situation (that's why they have this as an example to begin with). See CA FTB 568 booklet. The example is on page 14. I suggest forming the LLC in AZ/CA and registering it as a foreign entity in the other state (AZ if formed in CA, the better option IMHO, or CA if formed in AZ). You'll have tax liability in both the states, AZ taxes can be credited towards the CA taxes. Instead of forming LLC, you can cover your potential liability with sufficient insurance coverage."
},
{
"docid": "539752",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am not a lawyer, and I am assuming trusts in the UK work similar to the way they work in the US... A trust is a legally recognized entity that can act in business transactions much the same way as a person would (own real property, a business, insurance, investments, etc.). The short answer is the trust is the owner of the property. The trust is established by a Grantor who \"\"funds\"\" the trust by transferring ownership of items from him or herself (or itself, if another trust or business entity like a corporation) to the trust. A Trustee is appointed (usually by the Grantor) to manage the trust according to the conditions and terms specified in the trust. A Trustee would be failing in their responsibility (their fiduciary duty) if they do not act in accordance with the purposes of the trust. (Some trusts are written better than others, and there may or may not be room for broad interpretation of the purposes of the trust.) The trust is established to provide some benefit to the Beneficiary. The beneficiary can be anyone or anything, including another trust. In the US, a living trust is commonly used as an estate planning tool, where the Grantor, Trustee, and Beneficiary are the same person(s). At some point, due to health or other reasons, a new trustee can be appointed. Since the trust is a separate entity from the grantor and trustee, and it owns the assets, it can survive the death of the grantor, which makes it an attractive way to avoid having to probate the entire estate. A good living trust will have instructions for the Trustee on what to do with the assets upon the death of the Grantor(s).\""
},
{
"docid": "89157",
"title": "",
"text": "My understanding is that it works as you describe. Is this really a loophole? You could call it that if you want, but let's look at what really is happening. You get the tax deduction when you put money into the HSA, not when you take money out. And you can only put money in when you have the HSA-eligible High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) in place. While you had the non-HSA eligible plan in place (presumably a more expensive low deductible health plan), you somehow incurred $5000 of out-of-pocket expenses. This is real money that you had to pay out. Finally, you went back to the HDHP and began contributing to the HSA again, taking the tax deduction as you put money in, subject to the contribution limits. The money that is in the HSA is yours, and you had legitimate out-of-pocket medical expenses. Are you really cheating anybody out of anything if you choose to take that money back out? I don't think so."
},
{
"docid": "22425",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From IRS Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education Note: Qualified tuition programs (QTPs) are also called \"\"529 plans.\"\" Changing the Designated Beneficiary There are no income tax consequences if the designated beneficiary of an account is changed to a member of the beneficiary's family. See Members of the beneficiary's family , earlier. Members of the beneficiary's family. For these purposes, the beneficiary's family includes the beneficiary's spouse and the following other relatives of the beneficiary. regarding ownership changes: Rollovers Any amount distributed from a QTP isn't taxable if it is rolled over to another QTP for the benefit of the same beneficiary or for the benefit of a member of the beneficiary's family (including the beneficiary's spouse). An amount is rolled over if it is paid to another QTP within 60 days after the date of the distribution. Don't report qualifying rollovers (those that meet the above criteria) anywhere on Form 1040 or 1040NR. These aren't taxable distributions. Example. When Aaron graduated from college last year, he had $5,000 left in his QTP. He wanted to give this money to his younger brother, who was in junior high school. In order to avoid paying tax on the distribution of the amount remaining in his account, Aaron contributed the same amount to his brother's QTP within 60 days of the distribution. So it appears that as far as the IRS in concerned the rollover could be done to change ownership as long as the beneficiary was in the same family. It is possible that there could be a state tax issue with the change of ownership, if it changed from a plan in state A to one in state B; and state A treated the original contributions as a tax deduction. So check the guidelines for the specific 529 plan.\""
},
{
"docid": "545184",
"title": "",
"text": "As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed."
},
{
"docid": "114266",
"title": "",
"text": "Have you looked at 529 plan yet? There are tax benefits with it and you can roll over the remaining funds from your first child's account into your second child's, etc. Read this article to get yourself up to speed for this plan. Coverdell Education Savings Account is another plan you can look at. The Wikipedia article talks about the similarities and differences, so I won't repeat here."
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "118039",
"title": "",
"text": "why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "247313",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \"\"against the box\"\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\""
},
{
"docid": "494417",
"title": "",
"text": "No is and should be the standard answer. When your vacations have been planned ahead, why didn't the money saving start ? You should treat it as a punishment and forgo your vacation. But human beings aren't always that sensible so we go for plan B. Did you purchase your tickets/hotels or anything ? If yes, then check out the cancellation charges. Does the cancellation charges exceed the borrowing amount, then probably borrow and go on a vacation. But you should also consider, how the borrowed amount is to be paid. Is it within your means and your timeframe ? Does paying back the amount now, hamper your next vacation plans or other required spendings ?"
},
{
"docid": "458907",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\""
},
{
"docid": "122050",
"title": "",
"text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole."
},
{
"docid": "537153",
"title": "",
"text": "You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender."
},
{
"docid": "5573",
"title": "",
"text": "Exact rules may be different depending on the size of the investor, the specific broker, and the country. For both the US and Canada, short sales occur only through one's margin account. And shares that are borrowed for shorting only come from a margin account. Shares held in a cash account are not available for shorting. From Wikipedia Short (finance) - The speculator instructs the broker to sell the shares and the proceeds are credited to his broker's account at the firm upon which the firm can earn interest. Generally, the short seller does not earn interest on the short proceeds and cannot use or encumber the proceeds for another transaction. As with many questions, I'd suggest you contact your broker for the exact details governing your account."
},
{
"docid": "501984",
"title": "",
"text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost."
},
{
"docid": "245355",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "573077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\""
},
{
"docid": "206544",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to \"\"buy\"\" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make \"\"capital\"\" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase. Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view.\""
},
{
"docid": "274835",
"title": "",
"text": "In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker."
},
{
"docid": "384252",
"title": "",
"text": "In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance."
},
{
"docid": "107045",
"title": "",
"text": "Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:"
},
{
"docid": "547984",
"title": "",
"text": "The buyer discloses the financing arrangements to the seller because it makes his offer more attractive. When a seller receives and accepts an offer, the deal does not usually close until 30 to 60 days later. If the buyer cannot come up with the money by closing, the deal falls apart. This is a risk for the seller. When a seller is considering whether or not to accept an offer, it is helpful to know the likelihood that the buyer can actually obtain the amount of cash in the offer by the closing date. If the buyer can't acquire the funding, the offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The amount of the down payment vs. the amount of financing is also relevant to the seller. Let me give you a real-world example that happened to me once when I was selling a house. The buyer was doing a no-money-down mortgage and had no money for a down payment. He was even borrowing the closing costs. We accepted the offer, but when the bank did the appraisal, it was short of the purchase price. For most home sales, this would not be a problem, as long as the appraisal was more than the amount borrowed. But in this case, because the amount borrowed was more than the appraisal, the bank had a problem. The deal was at risk, and in order to continue either the buyer had to find some money somewhere (which he couldn't), or we had to lower the price to save the deal. Certainly, accepting the offer from a buyer with no cash to bring to the table was a risk. (In our case, we got lucky. We found some errors that were made in the appraisal, and got it redone.)"
},
{
"docid": "511587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\""
},
{
"docid": "469830",
"title": "",
"text": "Most brokers have a margin maintenance requirement of 30%. In your example, it would depend on how much money you're borrowing from your broker on margin. Consider this: You have $250, and short AAPL at $500 on margin. This would be a common scenario (federal law requires investors to have at least 50% of their margin equity when opening a transaction). If your broker had a requirement of 30%, they would require that for your $500 position, you have at least $500 * .3 = $150 equity. Since you are currently above that number at $250, you will not be hit with a margin call. Say the price of AAPL doubles, and now your position is worth $1000. $1000 * .3 = $300, which is $50 above your initial equity. Your broker will now consider you eligible for a margin call. Most will not execute the call right away, you will often have some time to either sell/cover stock or add funds to your account. But not all brokers will warn you if you are breaking margin requirements, and sometimes margin calls can take you by surprise if you are not paying attention. Also, many will charge interest on extra margin borrowed."
},
{
"docid": "7712",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money."
},
{
"docid": "595171",
"title": "",
"text": "There are rules that prevent two of the reactive measures you suggest from occurring. First, on the date of and shortly following an IPO, there is no stock available to borrow for shorting. Second, there are no put options available for purchase. At least, none that are listed, of the sort you probably have in mind. In fact, within a day or two of the LinkedIn IPO, most (all?) of the active equity traders I know were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't yet do exactly what you described i.e. buying puts, or finding shares to sell short. There was a great deal of conviction that LinkedIn shares were overpriced, but scant means available to translate that market assessment into an influence of market value. This does not mean that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is deficient. Equilibrium is reached quickly enough, once the market is able to clear as usual."
},
{
"docid": "316497",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\""
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "331850",
"title": "",
"text": "In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "595171",
"title": "",
"text": "There are rules that prevent two of the reactive measures you suggest from occurring. First, on the date of and shortly following an IPO, there is no stock available to borrow for shorting. Second, there are no put options available for purchase. At least, none that are listed, of the sort you probably have in mind. In fact, within a day or two of the LinkedIn IPO, most (all?) of the active equity traders I know were bemoaning the fact that they couldn't yet do exactly what you described i.e. buying puts, or finding shares to sell short. There was a great deal of conviction that LinkedIn shares were overpriced, but scant means available to translate that market assessment into an influence of market value. This does not mean that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis is deficient. Equilibrium is reached quickly enough, once the market is able to clear as usual."
},
{
"docid": "7712",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money."
},
{
"docid": "55022",
"title": "",
"text": "The most obvious use of a collateral is as a risk buffer. Just as when you borrow money to buy a house and the bank uses the house as a collateral, so when people borrow money to loan financial instruments (or as is more accurate, gain leverage) the lender keeps a percentage of that (or an equivalent instrument) as a collateral. In the event that the borrower falls short of margin requirements, brokers (in most cases) have the right to sell that collateral and mitigate the risk. Derivatives contracts, like any other financial instrument, come with their risks. And depending on their nature they may sometimes be much more riskier than their underlying instruments. For example, while a common stock's main risk comes from the movements in its price (which may itself result from many other macro/micro-economic factors), an option in that common stock faces risks from those factors plus the volatility of the stock's price. To cover this risk, lenders apply much higher haircuts when lending against these derivatives. In many cases, depending upon the notional exposure of the derivative, that actual dollar amount of the collateral may be more than the face value or the market value of the derivatives contract. Usually, this collateral is deposited not as the derivatives contract itself but rather as the underlying financial instrument (an equity in case of an option, a bond in case of a CDS, and so on). This allows the lender to offset the risk by executing a trade on that collateral itself."
},
{
"docid": "270979",
"title": "",
"text": "The whole point of buying puts is cheaper cost and lower downside risk. If you short the box, you are assuming he already holds gold holdings to short against. It's not the same as short selling where you borrow shares. Either way, you are far more vulnerable to downside risk if you are short the stock (whether you borrowed or shorted already owned shares). If Gold suddenly has a 20% pop over the next year, which could be possible given the volatility and uncertainty in the marketplace, you have big trouble. Whereas, if you buy puts, you only lose your costs for the contracts. The amount that you miss by in your bet isn't going to factor into anything."
},
{
"docid": "329662",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As the other answer said, the person who owns the lent stock does not benefit directly. They may benefit indirectly in that brokers can use the short lending profits to reduce their fees or in that they have the option to short other stocks at the same terms. Follow-up question: what prevents the broker lending the shares for a very short time (less than a day), pocketing the interest and returning the lenders their shares without much change in share price (because borrowing period was very short). What prevents them from doing that many times a day ? Lack of market. Short selling for short periods of time isn't so common as to allow for \"\"many\"\" times a day. Some day traders may do it occasionally, but I don't know that it would be a reliable business model to supply them. If there are enough people interested in shorting the stock, they will probably want to hold onto it long enough for the anticipated movement to happen. There are transaction costs here. Both fees for trading at all and the extra charges for short sale borrowing and interest. Most stocks do not move down by large enough amounts \"\"many\"\" times a day. Their fluctuations are smaller. If the stock doesn't move enough to cover the transaction fees, then that seller lost money overall. Over time, sellers like that will stop trading, as they will lose all their money. All that said, there are no legal blocks to loaning the stock out many times, just practical ones. If a stock was varying wildly for some bizarre reason, it could happen.\""
},
{
"docid": "384252",
"title": "",
"text": "In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance."
},
{
"docid": "241985",
"title": "",
"text": "Bank have their own Capital, Deposits from Depositors and lend money to Borrowers. In a liquidity problem, it is typically that either the Borrowers are taking time to repay [they are not yet defaulters] or there is more pressure on withdrawals from Depositors or there is a short term of mismatch between deposits and loans ... in all these valid scenarios FED does lend out the banks to met these short terms obligations. Banks fail when the losses are actually booked in comparison to the overall Capital or loss would materialize ... for example the Mortgage crisis in US meant that quite a few Banks the actual loss had materialized or would have any ways materialized. In such situations the short term leading does not help and they would burn it out anyways as the borrowers are not paying back any time soon ..."
},
{
"docid": "458730",
"title": "",
"text": "I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances."
},
{
"docid": "96211",
"title": "",
"text": "\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\""
},
{
"docid": "501984",
"title": "",
"text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost."
},
{
"docid": "473477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is possible and it depends on your strategy. As short selling interest rates are annual and levied monthly at a prorated rate. Interest rates are also low in general, with the exception of hard to borrow stocks. Therefore you can maintain a short position for weeks on end and notice nothing. Months even, if the position itself has already gained in your favor. There is no additional fee for opening the short position. Although some brokers have a \"\"locate\"\" fee, if it is hard to borrow the stock and they need to go find some shares to short. So you can do it as much as you like.\""
},
{
"docid": "226496",
"title": "",
"text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:"
},
{
"docid": "523729",
"title": "",
"text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!"
},
{
"docid": "573077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\""
},
{
"docid": "122050",
"title": "",
"text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole."
},
{
"docid": "433806",
"title": "",
"text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\""
},
{
"docid": "127585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\""
},
{
"docid": "274835",
"title": "",
"text": "In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker."
},
{
"docid": "205585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "188531",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "330041",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, you are not exactly \"\"giving\"\" the brokerage $2000. That money is the margin requirement to protect them in the case the stock price rises. If you short 200 shares as in your example and they are holding $6000 from you then they are protected in the event of the stock price increasing to $30/share. Sometime before it gets there the brokerage will require you to deposit more money or they will cover your position by repurchasing the shares for your account. The way you make money on the short sale is if the stock price declines. It is a buy low sell high idea but in reverse. If you believe that prices are going to drop then you could sell now when it is high and buy back later when it is lower. In your example, you are selling 200 shares at $20 and later, buying those at $19. Thus, your profit is $200, not counting any interest or fees you have paid. It's a bit confusing because you are selling something you'll buy in the future. Selling short is usually considered quite risky as your gain is limited to the amount that you sold at initially (if I sell at $20/share the most I can make is if the stock declines to $0). Your potential to lose is unlimited in theory. There is no limit to how high the stock could go in theory so I could end up buying it back at an infinitely high price. Neither of these extremes are likely but they do show the limits of your potential gain and loss. I used $20/share for simplicity assuming you are shorting with a market order vs a limit order. If you are shorting it would be better for you to sell at 20 instead of 19 anyway. If someone says I would like to give you $20 for that item you are selling you aren't likely to tell them \"\"no, I'd really only like $19 for it\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "122050",
"title": "",
"text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole."
},
{
"docid": "117726",
"title": "",
"text": "Three things They are the nexus in the nexus of contracts theory. They do qualitative maturity transformation. Ie, borrow money short and lend it long. They also aggregate risk that others don't Want to take and sell it to people who do want it. Managing this risk effectively explains 99% of what a bank does."
},
{
"docid": "327814",
"title": "",
"text": "First utilize a security screener to identify the security profiles you are looking to identify for identifying your target securities for shorting. Most online brokers have stock screeners that you can utilize. At this point you may want to look at your target list of securities to find out those that are eligible for shorting. The SHO thresold list is also a good place to look for securities that are hard to borrow to eliminate potential target securities. http://regsho.finra.org/regsho-Index.html Also your broker can let you know the stocks that are available for borrowing. You can then take your target securities and then you can look at the corporate filings on the SEC's Edgar site to look for the key words you are looking for. I would suggest that you utilize XBRL so you can electronically run your key word searched in an automated manner. I would further suggest that you can run the key word XBRL daily for issuer filings of your target list of securities. Additional word searches you may want to consider are those that could indicate a dilution of the companies stock such as the issuance of convertible debt. Also the below link detailing real short interest may be helpful. Clearing firms are required to report short interest every two weeks. http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/short-interest.aspx"
},
{
"docid": "584273",
"title": "",
"text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one."
},
{
"docid": "511177",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I never said Wall Street enjoys paying taxes. But that is only because they are short-sighted and arrogant. If they were to take a step back they would see that a functioning society is more in their interest that a few extra mil and social upheaval. If this is a reasonable argument (not saying it's true, but that it's not immediately or definitively wrong), then we can say that it's not unreasonable for Warren Buffet to hold that idea, which would invalidate your premise. Requiring a level of proof beyond that is absurd and you're just obstructing the conversation, what are we going to do, hack into his brain to find out his \"\"true\"\" thoughts? Just to be clear, I do not think government bureaucracy will solve this problem, and I agree with your analysis of how that would play out. I don't think a solution to these types of problems exists within the state-market paradigm. But at least now we're agreeing that there is a market-failure at work, rather than your previous statement of \"\"it is ridiculous for Bob to think he is entitled to 5 cows if John sells Jim ten thousand heads.\"\" My question then is why do you espouse such simplistic nonsense when you understand that the situation is much more complex? Is it because it is easier and more psychologically comfortable to ignore these injustices than to admit that your model does not have an effective way of dealing with them? > Why do you think this, exactly? Because things like this require collective action or you run into the free rider problem.\""
},
{
"docid": "241985",
"title": "",
"text": "Bank have their own Capital, Deposits from Depositors and lend money to Borrowers. In a liquidity problem, it is typically that either the Borrowers are taking time to repay [they are not yet defaulters] or there is more pressure on withdrawals from Depositors or there is a short term of mismatch between deposits and loans ... in all these valid scenarios FED does lend out the banks to met these short terms obligations. Banks fail when the losses are actually booked in comparison to the overall Capital or loss would materialize ... for example the Mortgage crisis in US meant that quite a few Banks the actual loss had materialized or would have any ways materialized. In such situations the short term leading does not help and they would burn it out anyways as the borrowers are not paying back any time soon ..."
},
{
"docid": "433806",
"title": "",
"text": "\"1) Are the definitions for capital market from the two sources the same? Yes. They are from two different perspectives. Investopedia is looking at it primarily from the perspective of a trader and they lead-off with the secondary market. This refers to the secondary market: A market in which individuals and institutions trade financial securities. This refers to the primary market: Organizations/institutions in the public and private sectors also often sell securities on the capital markets in order to raise funds. Also, the Investopedia definition leaves much to be desired, but it is supposed to be pithy. So, you are comparing apples and oranges, to some extent. One is an article, as short as it may be, this other one is an entry in a dictionary. 2) What is the opposite of capital market, according to the definition in investopedia? It's not quite about opposites, this is not physics. However, that is not the issue here. The Investopedia definition simply does not mention any other possibilities. The Wikipedia article defines the term more thoroughly. It talks about primary/secondary markets in separate paragraph. 3) According to the Wikipedia's definition, why does stock market belong to capital market, given that stocks can be held less than one year too? If you follow the link in the Wikipedia article to money market: As money became a commodity, the money market is nowadays a component of the financial markets for assets involved in short-term borrowing, lending, buying and selling with original maturities of one year or less. The key here is original maturities of one year or less. Here's my attempt at explaining this: Financial markets are comprised of money markets and capital markets. Money is traded as if it were a commodity on the money markets. Hence, the short-term nature in its definition. They are more focused on the money itself. Capital markets are focused on the money as a means to an end. Companies seek money in these markets for longer terms in order to improve their business in some way. A business may go to the money markets to access money quickly in order to deal with a short-term cash crunch. Meanwhile, a business may go to the capital markets to seek money in order to expand its business. Note that capital markets came first and money markets are a relatively recent development. Also, we are typically speaking about the secondary (capital) market when we are talking about the stock or bond market. In this market, participants are merely trading among themselves. The company that sought money by issuing that stock/bond certificate is out of the picture at that point and has its money. So, Facebook got its money from participants in the primary market: the underwriters. The underwriters then turned around and sold that stock in an IPO to the secondary market. After the IPO, their stock trades on the secondary market where you or I have access to trade it. That money flows between traders. Facebook got its money at the \"\"beginning\"\" of the process.\""
},
{
"docid": "12378",
"title": "",
"text": "Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money."
},
{
"docid": "447294",
"title": "",
"text": "The only way I've seen mezz work for more than one cycle is the hard money model. Stay away from glory assets. Maturities of a year or two max. Have the stomach and wherewithal to foreclose quickly when the borrower defaults. Keep the (C)LTV under 70, where the V is not aspirational. Unitranche is generally better because it simplifies and, therefore, expedites things. All that requires sitting on dry powder while your competitors are busy and then it will cost you relationships in your other funds/divisions when you ramp up. This is why most lenders succumb: they tie their managers' careers to the short term, which, to be fair, is much easier to measure. This also applies the broader mezz market beyond RE."
},
{
"docid": "458907",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\""
},
{
"docid": "94690",
"title": "",
"text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt."
},
{
"docid": "237317",
"title": "",
"text": "A large number of bond holders decide to sell their bonds. If they all decide to do this at the same time then there will be a large supply of bonds being sold in the market. This will drive down the price of the bonds which will increase yields. Why do bond yields move inversely to bond prices? You purchase a $100 bond today that yields 5%. You spent $100. The very next day the same bonds are being sold with a yield of 10%. If you wanted to sell your bond to someone you would have to sell it so it competed with the new bonds being sold. You could not sell it for $100 which is what you paid for it. You would have to sell it for less than the $100 you paid for it in order for it to have the equivalent yield of the new bonds being sold with a 10% yield. This is why bond yields move inversely to bond prices. Why does rising yields increase the cost of borrowing? If someone is trying to sell new bonds they will have to sell bonds that compete with the yields of the current bonds already in the market. If yields are rising on the existing bonds then the issuer of the new bonds will have to pay higher interest rates to offer equivalent yields on the new bonds. The issuer is now paying more in interest making it more expensive to borrow money. What are the incentives for the bond vigilante to sell his/her bonds? One reason a bond holder will sell his/her bonds is they believe inflation will outpace the yield on the bond they are holding. If a bond yields 3% and inflation is at 5% then the bond holder is essentially losing purchasing power if they continue to hold onto the bond. Another reason to sell would be if the bond holder has doubts in the ability of the issuer to repay the interest and/or principal of the bond."
},
{
"docid": "96211",
"title": "",
"text": "\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\""
},
{
"docid": "549422",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\""
},
{
"docid": "547984",
"title": "",
"text": "The buyer discloses the financing arrangements to the seller because it makes his offer more attractive. When a seller receives and accepts an offer, the deal does not usually close until 30 to 60 days later. If the buyer cannot come up with the money by closing, the deal falls apart. This is a risk for the seller. When a seller is considering whether or not to accept an offer, it is helpful to know the likelihood that the buyer can actually obtain the amount of cash in the offer by the closing date. If the buyer can't acquire the funding, the offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The amount of the down payment vs. the amount of financing is also relevant to the seller. Let me give you a real-world example that happened to me once when I was selling a house. The buyer was doing a no-money-down mortgage and had no money for a down payment. He was even borrowing the closing costs. We accepted the offer, but when the bank did the appraisal, it was short of the purchase price. For most home sales, this would not be a problem, as long as the appraisal was more than the amount borrowed. But in this case, because the amount borrowed was more than the appraisal, the bank had a problem. The deal was at risk, and in order to continue either the buyer had to find some money somewhere (which he couldn't), or we had to lower the price to save the deal. Certainly, accepting the offer from a buyer with no cash to bring to the table was a risk. (In our case, we got lucky. We found some errors that were made in the appraisal, and got it redone.)"
},
{
"docid": "127585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\""
},
{
"docid": "316497",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\""
},
{
"docid": "523729",
"title": "",
"text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!"
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "233379",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your \"\"initial position\"\". We define \"\"profit\"\" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "7712",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money."
},
{
"docid": "196427",
"title": "",
"text": "Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period."
},
{
"docid": "336145",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some people believe that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply when the banks engage in fractional reserve lending. Is this correct? You are referring to the Austrian school of thought. The Austrians define inflation in terms of money supply. In other words, inflation is defined as an increase in the aggregate money supply, even if prices stay the same of fall. This is not the only definition of inflation. The mainstream defines inflation as a general increase in the prices of consumer goods. Based on the first definition, then your supposition is correct by definition. Based on the second definition, you can make a case that money supply affects prices. But keep in mind, it's just one factor affecting prices. Furthermore, economics is resistant to experimentation, so it is difficult to establish causality. Austrian economists tend to approach the problem of \"\"proof\"\" using a 2-pronged tactic: establish plausibility by explaining the mechanism, then look for historical evidence to back up that explanation. As I understand it, when there is more available money in the market, the price of goods will increase. But will a normal merchant acknowledge the increase of money supply and raise prices immediately? I posit that, in the short run, merchants won't increase prices in response to increased money supply. So, why does increased money supply lead to price inflation? The simple answer, in the Austrian school of thought, is that you have more money chasing the same amount of goods. In other words, printing money doesn't actually increase the number of widgets made. I believe the Austrian school is consistent with your supposition that prices don't increase in the short run. In other words, producers don't increase prices immediately after observing an increase in the money supply. Specifically, after the banks print more notes, where will the money be distributed first? The Austrian story goes as follows: Imagine that the first borrower is a home constructor, and he is borrowing freshly \"\"printed\"\" money to build new homes. This constructor will need to buy materials and hire labor to build homes, and in doing so he will bid against other home constructors. The increased demand for lumber, nails, tools, carpentry, etc. will ever so slightly increase the market prices for these goods and services. So the money goes first to the borrower, but then flows also to the people selling to the borrower, and the people selling to the sellers, etc. It has a ripple effect. Who will be the first one to have a need to rise their price? These producers won't need to increase their price, but they will choose to do so if the believe that demand outstrips supply. In other words if you have more orders than you can fill, then you may post higher prices because you think consumers will tolerate the higher price. You might object that competition deters any one producer from unilaterally raising prices, but in fact if all producers are failing to keep up with demand, then you can unilaterally raise prices because other producers don't have any excess inventory to undercut you with.\""
},
{
"docid": "206544",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to \"\"buy\"\" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make \"\"capital\"\" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase. Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view.\""
},
{
"docid": "384252",
"title": "",
"text": "In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance."
},
{
"docid": "94690",
"title": "",
"text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt."
},
{
"docid": "84761",
"title": "",
"text": "When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore."
},
{
"docid": "179893",
"title": "",
"text": "For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales."
},
{
"docid": "247313",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \"\"against the box\"\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\""
},
{
"docid": "385220",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\""
},
{
"docid": "96211",
"title": "",
"text": "\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\""
},
{
"docid": "517299",
"title": "",
"text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance."
},
{
"docid": "177563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\""
},
{
"docid": "549422",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\""
},
{
"docid": "205585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "499877",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\""
},
{
"docid": "501984",
"title": "",
"text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost."
},
{
"docid": "189061",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sell 200 at 142. What does that mean? I haven't seen the movie, so I won't try to put anything in story context. \"\"Sell 200 at 142\"\" means to sell 200 units (usually shares, but in this case it would likely be gallons or barrels of orange juice or pounds or tons of frozen juice). In general, this could mean that you have 200 units and want to sell what you have. Or you could borrow 200 units from someone and sell those--this is called a naked short. In this case, it seems that what they are selling is a futures contract. With a futures contract, you are promising to obtain orange juice by some future date and sell it for the agreed price. You could own an orange grove and plan to turn your oranges into juice. Or you could buy a futures contract of oranges to turn into juice. Or you could arbitrage two futures contracts such that one supplies the other, what they're doing here. In general people make profits by buying low and selling high. In this case they did so in reverse order. They took the risk of selling before they had a supply. Then they covered their position by purchasing the supply. They profited because the price at which they bought was lower than the price at which they sold. The reason why this is necessary is that before buying the oranges, the orange juice makers need to know that they can make a profit. So they sell orange juice on the futures market. Then they know how much they can afford to pay for oranges on a different market. And the growers know how much they can get for oranges, so they can pay people to water and pick them. Without the futures markets, growers and orange juice makers would have to take all the risk themselves. This way, they can share risks with each other and financiers. Combined with insurance, this allows for predictable finances. Without it, growers would have to be wealthy to afford the variation in crop yields and prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "122050",
"title": "",
"text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole."
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "94117",
"title": "",
"text": "This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "549422",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\""
},
{
"docid": "473477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is possible and it depends on your strategy. As short selling interest rates are annual and levied monthly at a prorated rate. Interest rates are also low in general, with the exception of hard to borrow stocks. Therefore you can maintain a short position for weeks on end and notice nothing. Months even, if the position itself has already gained in your favor. There is no additional fee for opening the short position. Although some brokers have a \"\"locate\"\" fee, if it is hard to borrow the stock and they need to go find some shares to short. So you can do it as much as you like.\""
},
{
"docid": "122050",
"title": "",
"text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole."
},
{
"docid": "584273",
"title": "",
"text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one."
},
{
"docid": "300709",
"title": "",
"text": "The uptick rule is gone, but it was weakly reintroduced in 2010, applied to all publicly traded equities: Under the terms of the rule, a circuit breaker would be triggered if a stock falls by 10% or more in a single day. At that point, short selling would only be allowed if the price is above the current national best bid, a restriction that would apply for the rest of the day and the whole of the following day. Derivatives are not yet restricted in such ways because of their spontaneous nature, requiring a short to increase supply; however, this latest rule widens options spreads during collapses because the exemption for hedging is now gone, and what's more a tool used by options market makers, shorting the underlying to offset positive delta, now has to go to the back of the selling line during a panic. Bonds are not restricted because for one there isn't much interest in shorting because bonds usually don't have enough variance to exceed the cost of borrowing, and many do not trade frequently enough because even the cost to trade bonds is expensive, so arranging a short in its entirety will be expensive. The preferred method to short a bond is with swaps, swaptions, etc."
},
{
"docid": "245355",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "47163",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends on the country, whether its a currency issuer with floating exchange rate, and what the debt is denominated in. For instance, the US has no real debt, b/c its all in US dollars and can be printed at any time. It has no need to borrow anything, it issues its own currency. It used to be different 4 decades ago, on the gold standard, so in general people still think currency issuers need to borrow (or earn) to spend. Just a relic in thinking. But when the country does not issue its own currency, then it does need to earn or borrow in order to spend. In this case, it could borrow from anywhere that will lend it money. In US, a state would fit this description. Or Greece, as it borrowed Euros, for which it is not an issuer of. EDIT: just came across this blog http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from Its title, \"\"Where does the money come from\"\". Maybe he saw this question. Anyway, the US does not need to borrow money. Why would it borrow what it creates? From the video: \"\"Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it a lot\"\". Great line.\""
},
{
"docid": "274835",
"title": "",
"text": "In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker."
},
{
"docid": "574954",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\""
},
{
"docid": "336145",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some people believe that inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply when the banks engage in fractional reserve lending. Is this correct? You are referring to the Austrian school of thought. The Austrians define inflation in terms of money supply. In other words, inflation is defined as an increase in the aggregate money supply, even if prices stay the same of fall. This is not the only definition of inflation. The mainstream defines inflation as a general increase in the prices of consumer goods. Based on the first definition, then your supposition is correct by definition. Based on the second definition, you can make a case that money supply affects prices. But keep in mind, it's just one factor affecting prices. Furthermore, economics is resistant to experimentation, so it is difficult to establish causality. Austrian economists tend to approach the problem of \"\"proof\"\" using a 2-pronged tactic: establish plausibility by explaining the mechanism, then look for historical evidence to back up that explanation. As I understand it, when there is more available money in the market, the price of goods will increase. But will a normal merchant acknowledge the increase of money supply and raise prices immediately? I posit that, in the short run, merchants won't increase prices in response to increased money supply. So, why does increased money supply lead to price inflation? The simple answer, in the Austrian school of thought, is that you have more money chasing the same amount of goods. In other words, printing money doesn't actually increase the number of widgets made. I believe the Austrian school is consistent with your supposition that prices don't increase in the short run. In other words, producers don't increase prices immediately after observing an increase in the money supply. Specifically, after the banks print more notes, where will the money be distributed first? The Austrian story goes as follows: Imagine that the first borrower is a home constructor, and he is borrowing freshly \"\"printed\"\" money to build new homes. This constructor will need to buy materials and hire labor to build homes, and in doing so he will bid against other home constructors. The increased demand for lumber, nails, tools, carpentry, etc. will ever so slightly increase the market prices for these goods and services. So the money goes first to the borrower, but then flows also to the people selling to the borrower, and the people selling to the sellers, etc. It has a ripple effect. Who will be the first one to have a need to rise their price? These producers won't need to increase their price, but they will choose to do so if the believe that demand outstrips supply. In other words if you have more orders than you can fill, then you may post higher prices because you think consumers will tolerate the higher price. You might object that competition deters any one producer from unilaterally raising prices, but in fact if all producers are failing to keep up with demand, then you can unilaterally raise prices because other producers don't have any excess inventory to undercut you with.\""
},
{
"docid": "385220",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\""
},
{
"docid": "206544",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to \"\"buy\"\" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make \"\"capital\"\" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase. Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view.\""
},
{
"docid": "127585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\""
},
{
"docid": "520098",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\""
},
{
"docid": "93836",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Because ETFs, unlike most other pooled investments, can be easily shorted, it is possible for institutional investors to take an arbitrage position that is long the underlying securities and short the ETF. The result is that in a well functioning market (where ETF prices are what they should be) these institutional investors would earn a risk-free profit equal to the fee amount. How much is this amount, though? ETFs exist in a very competitive market. Not only do they compete with each other, but with index and mutual funds and with the possibility of constructing one's own portfolio of the underlying. ETF investors are very cost-conscious. As a result, ETF fees just barely cover their costs. Typically, ETF providers do not even do their own trading. They issue new shares only in exchange for a bundle of the underlying securities, so they have almost no costs. In order for an institutional investor to make money with the arbitrage you describe, they would need to be able to carry it out for less than the fees earned by the ETF. Unlike the ETF provider, these investors face borrowing and other shorting costs and limitations. As a result it is not profitable for them to attempt this. Note that even if they had no costs, their maximum upside would be a few basis points per year. Lots of low-risk investments do better than that. I'd also like to address your question about what would happen if there was an ETF with exorbitant fees. Two things about your suggested outcome are incorrect. If short sellers bid the price down significantly, then the shares would be cheap relative to their stream of future dividends and investors would again buy them. In a well-functioning market, you can't bid the price of something that clearly is backed by valuable underlying assets down to near zero, as you suggest in your question. Notice that there are limitations to short selling. The more shares are short-sold, the more difficult it is to locate share to borrow for this purpose. At first brokers start charging additional fees. As borrowable shares become harder to find, they require that you obtain a \"\"locate,\"\" which takes time and costs money. Finally they will not allow you to short at all. Unlimited short selling is not possible. If there was an ETF that charged exorbitant fees, it would fail, but not because of short sellers. There is an even easier arbitrage strategy: Investors would buy the shares of the ETF (which would be cheaper than the value of the underlying because of the fees) and trade them back to the ETF provider in exchange for shares of the underlying. This would drain down the underlying asset pool until it was empty. In fact, it is this mechanism (the ability to trade ETF shares for shares of the underlying and vice versa) that keeps ETF prices fair (within a small tolerance) relative to the underlying indices.\""
},
{
"docid": "67107",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You didn't win in case B. Borrowing shares and then selling them is known as \"\"selling short\"\". You received $2000 when you sold short 100 shares at $20. You spent $1000 to buy them back at $10, so you come out $1000 ahead on that deal. But at the same time, the 100 shares you already owned have declined in value from $20 to $10, so you are down $1000 on that deal. So you've simply broken even, and you are still out the interest and transaction fees. In effect, a short sale allows you to sell shares you don't own. But if you do already own them, then the effect is the same as if you just sold your own shares. This makes it easier to see that this is just a complicated and expensive way of accomplishing nothing at all.\""
},
{
"docid": "196427",
"title": "",
"text": "Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period."
},
{
"docid": "12378",
"title": "",
"text": "Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money."
},
{
"docid": "591694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\""
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "259706",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A simple way to ask the question might be to say \"\"why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Why is borrowing someone else's shares necessary to make the concept a viable one? Why isn't it just the inverse of 'going long'?\"\" A simple way to think about it is this: to make money by trading something, you must buy it for less than you sell it for. This applies to stocks like anything else. If you believe the price will go up, then you can buy them first and sell them later for a higher price. But if you believe the price will go down, the only way to buy low and sell high is to sell first and buy later. If you buy the stock and it goes down, any sale you make will lose you money. I'm still not sure I fully understand the point of your example, but one thing to note is that in both cases (i.e., whether you buy the share back at the end or not), you lost money. You say that you \"\"made $5 on the share price dropping\"\", but that isn't true at all: you can see in your example that your final account balance is negative in both cases. You paid $20 for the shares but only got $15 back; you lost $5 (or, in the other version of your example, paid $20 and got back $5 plus the depreciated shares). If you had bought the shares for $20 and sold them for, say, $25, then your account would end up with a positive $5 balance; that is what a gain would look like. But you can't achieve that if you buy the shares for $20 and later sell them for less. At a guess, you seem to be confusing the concept of making a profit with the concept of cutting your losses. It is true that if you buy the shares for $20 and sell them for $15, you lose only $5, whereas if you buy them for $20 and sell for $10, you lose the larger amount of $10. But those are both losses. Selling \"\"early\"\" as the price goes down doesn't make you any money; it just stops you from losing more money than you would if you sold later.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "511587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\""
},
{
"docid": "458907",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\""
},
{
"docid": "499877",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\""
},
{
"docid": "5573",
"title": "",
"text": "Exact rules may be different depending on the size of the investor, the specific broker, and the country. For both the US and Canada, short sales occur only through one's margin account. And shares that are borrowed for shorting only come from a margin account. Shares held in a cash account are not available for shorting. From Wikipedia Short (finance) - The speculator instructs the broker to sell the shares and the proceeds are credited to his broker's account at the firm upon which the firm can earn interest. Generally, the short seller does not earn interest on the short proceeds and cannot use or encumber the proceeds for another transaction. As with many questions, I'd suggest you contact your broker for the exact details governing your account."
},
{
"docid": "547984",
"title": "",
"text": "The buyer discloses the financing arrangements to the seller because it makes his offer more attractive. When a seller receives and accepts an offer, the deal does not usually close until 30 to 60 days later. If the buyer cannot come up with the money by closing, the deal falls apart. This is a risk for the seller. When a seller is considering whether or not to accept an offer, it is helpful to know the likelihood that the buyer can actually obtain the amount of cash in the offer by the closing date. If the buyer can't acquire the funding, the offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The amount of the down payment vs. the amount of financing is also relevant to the seller. Let me give you a real-world example that happened to me once when I was selling a house. The buyer was doing a no-money-down mortgage and had no money for a down payment. He was even borrowing the closing costs. We accepted the offer, but when the bank did the appraisal, it was short of the purchase price. For most home sales, this would not be a problem, as long as the appraisal was more than the amount borrowed. But in this case, because the amount borrowed was more than the appraisal, the bank had a problem. The deal was at risk, and in order to continue either the buyer had to find some money somewhere (which he couldn't), or we had to lower the price to save the deal. Certainly, accepting the offer from a buyer with no cash to bring to the table was a risk. (In our case, we got lucky. We found some errors that were made in the appraisal, and got it redone.)"
},
{
"docid": "241985",
"title": "",
"text": "Bank have their own Capital, Deposits from Depositors and lend money to Borrowers. In a liquidity problem, it is typically that either the Borrowers are taking time to repay [they are not yet defaulters] or there is more pressure on withdrawals from Depositors or there is a short term of mismatch between deposits and loans ... in all these valid scenarios FED does lend out the banks to met these short terms obligations. Banks fail when the losses are actually booked in comparison to the overall Capital or loss would materialize ... for example the Mortgage crisis in US meant that quite a few Banks the actual loss had materialized or would have any ways materialized. In such situations the short term leading does not help and they would burn it out anyways as the borrowers are not paying back any time soon ..."
},
{
"docid": "591694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\""
},
{
"docid": "385220",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\""
},
{
"docid": "494417",
"title": "",
"text": "No is and should be the standard answer. When your vacations have been planned ahead, why didn't the money saving start ? You should treat it as a punishment and forgo your vacation. But human beings aren't always that sensible so we go for plan B. Did you purchase your tickets/hotels or anything ? If yes, then check out the cancellation charges. Does the cancellation charges exceed the borrowing amount, then probably borrow and go on a vacation. But you should also consider, how the borrowed amount is to be paid. Is it within your means and your timeframe ? Does paying back the amount now, hamper your next vacation plans or other required spendings ?"
},
{
"docid": "585511",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Pay someone a fee to borrow their private Uber shares, then sell those private shares to someone else, then find someone else you can buy their private shares from for less than the net of the proceeds you made selling the borrowed shares you sold plus the fees you've paid to the first person and return your newly purchased shares back to the person you initially borrowed the shares from. On a serious note, Uber is private; there is no liquid public market for the shares so there is no mechanism to short the company. The valuations you see might not even be legitimate because the company's financials are not public. You could try to short a proxy for Uber but to my knowledge there is no public \"\"rideshare\"\"/taxi service business similar enough to Uber to be a reasonably legitimate proxy.\""
},
{
"docid": "127585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\""
},
{
"docid": "549422",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\""
},
{
"docid": "240215",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\""
},
{
"docid": "1203",
"title": "",
"text": "When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account."
},
{
"docid": "480967",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\""
},
{
"docid": "177563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\""
},
{
"docid": "96211",
"title": "",
"text": "\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\""
},
{
"docid": "584273",
"title": "",
"text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one."
},
{
"docid": "247313",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two primary reasons shares are sold short: (1) to speculate that a stock's price will decline and (2) to hedge some other related financial exposure. The first is acknowledged by the question. The second reason may be done for taxes (shorting \"\"against the box\"\" was once permitted for tax purposes), for arbitrage positions such as merger arbitrage and situations when an outright sale of stock is not permitted, such as owning restricted stock such as employer-granted shares. Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? The investor loaning his stock out to short-sellers earns interest on those shares that the borrower pays. It is not unusual for the annualized cost of borrowing stock to be double digits when there is high demand for heavily shorted shares. This benefit is however not available to all investors.\""
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "320450",
"title": "",
"text": "You can't make money on the way down if it was your money that bought the shares when the market was up. When you sell short, borrowing lets you tap into the value without paying for it. That way, when the price (hopefully) drops you profit from the difference. In your example, if you hadn't paid the £20 in the first place, then you would actually be up £5. But since you started with £20, you still show loss. As others said, borrowing is the definition of selling short. It is also simply the only way the math works. Of course, there is a large risk you must assume to enjoy benefiting from something you do not own!"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "47163",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends on the country, whether its a currency issuer with floating exchange rate, and what the debt is denominated in. For instance, the US has no real debt, b/c its all in US dollars and can be printed at any time. It has no need to borrow anything, it issues its own currency. It used to be different 4 decades ago, on the gold standard, so in general people still think currency issuers need to borrow (or earn) to spend. Just a relic in thinking. But when the country does not issue its own currency, then it does need to earn or borrow in order to spend. In this case, it could borrow from anywhere that will lend it money. In US, a state would fit this description. Or Greece, as it borrowed Euros, for which it is not an issuer of. EDIT: just came across this blog http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from Its title, \"\"Where does the money come from\"\". Maybe he saw this question. Anyway, the US does not need to borrow money. Why would it borrow what it creates? From the video: \"\"Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it a lot\"\". Great line.\""
},
{
"docid": "473477",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is possible and it depends on your strategy. As short selling interest rates are annual and levied monthly at a prorated rate. Interest rates are also low in general, with the exception of hard to borrow stocks. Therefore you can maintain a short position for weeks on end and notice nothing. Months even, if the position itself has already gained in your favor. There is no additional fee for opening the short position. Although some brokers have a \"\"locate\"\" fee, if it is hard to borrow the stock and they need to go find some shares to short. So you can do it as much as you like.\""
},
{
"docid": "12378",
"title": "",
"text": "Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money."
},
{
"docid": "177563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\""
},
{
"docid": "22268",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\""
},
{
"docid": "447294",
"title": "",
"text": "The only way I've seen mezz work for more than one cycle is the hard money model. Stay away from glory assets. Maturities of a year or two max. Have the stomach and wherewithal to foreclose quickly when the borrower defaults. Keep the (C)LTV under 70, where the V is not aspirational. Unitranche is generally better because it simplifies and, therefore, expedites things. All that requires sitting on dry powder while your competitors are busy and then it will cost you relationships in your other funds/divisions when you ramp up. This is why most lenders succumb: they tie their managers' careers to the short term, which, to be fair, is much easier to measure. This also applies the broader mezz market beyond RE."
},
{
"docid": "520098",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\""
},
{
"docid": "384252",
"title": "",
"text": "In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance."
},
{
"docid": "140371",
"title": "",
"text": "To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above."
},
{
"docid": "547984",
"title": "",
"text": "The buyer discloses the financing arrangements to the seller because it makes his offer more attractive. When a seller receives and accepts an offer, the deal does not usually close until 30 to 60 days later. If the buyer cannot come up with the money by closing, the deal falls apart. This is a risk for the seller. When a seller is considering whether or not to accept an offer, it is helpful to know the likelihood that the buyer can actually obtain the amount of cash in the offer by the closing date. If the buyer can't acquire the funding, the offer isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The amount of the down payment vs. the amount of financing is also relevant to the seller. Let me give you a real-world example that happened to me once when I was selling a house. The buyer was doing a no-money-down mortgage and had no money for a down payment. He was even borrowing the closing costs. We accepted the offer, but when the bank did the appraisal, it was short of the purchase price. For most home sales, this would not be a problem, as long as the appraisal was more than the amount borrowed. But in this case, because the amount borrowed was more than the appraisal, the bank had a problem. The deal was at risk, and in order to continue either the buyer had to find some money somewhere (which he couldn't), or we had to lower the price to save the deal. Certainly, accepting the offer from a buyer with no cash to bring to the table was a risk. (In our case, we got lucky. We found some errors that were made in the appraisal, and got it redone.)"
},
{
"docid": "499877",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The reason for selling a stock \"\"short\"\", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future. Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200\""
},
{
"docid": "385220",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\""
},
{
"docid": "484105",
"title": "",
"text": "The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices."
},
{
"docid": "402967",
"title": "",
"text": "Many of the major indices retreated today because of this news. Why? How do the rising budget deficits and debt relate to the stock markets? The major reason for the market retreating is the uncertainty regarding the US Dollar. If the US credit rating drops that will have an inflationary effect on the currency (as it will push up the cost of US Treasuries and reduce confidence in the USD). If this continues the loss of USD confidence could bring an end to the USD as the world's reserve currency which could also create inflation (as world banks could reduce their USD reserves). This can make US assets appear overvalued. Why is there such a large emphasis on the S&P rating? S&P is a large trusted rating agency so the market will respond to their analysis much like how a bank would respond to any change in your rating by Transunion (Consumer Credit Bureau) Does this have any major implications for the US stock markets today, in the short term and in July? If you are a day-trader I'm sure it does. There will be minor fluctuations in the market as soon as news comes out (either of its extension or any expected delays in passing that extension). What happens when the debt ceiling is reached? Since the US is in a deficit spending situation it needs to borrow more to satisfy its existing obligations (in short it pays its debt with more debt). As a result, if the debt ceiling isn't raised then eventually the US will be unable to pay its existing obligations. We would be in a default situation which could have devastating affects on the value of the USD. How hard the hit will depend on how long the default situation lasts (the longer we go without an increased ceiling after the exhaustion point the more we default on). In reality, Congress will approve a raise, but they will drag it out to the last possible minute. They want to appear as if they are against it, but they understand the catastrophic effects of not doing so."
},
{
"docid": "574954",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\""
},
{
"docid": "573077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\""
},
{
"docid": "584273",
"title": "",
"text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one."
},
{
"docid": "537153",
"title": "",
"text": "You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender."
},
{
"docid": "474059",
"title": "",
"text": "Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower."
}
] |
6110 | Why does short selling require borrowing? | [
{
"docid": "226496",
"title": "",
"text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "245355",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "458730",
"title": "",
"text": "I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances."
},
{
"docid": "94690",
"title": "",
"text": "The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt."
},
{
"docid": "189061",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sell 200 at 142. What does that mean? I haven't seen the movie, so I won't try to put anything in story context. \"\"Sell 200 at 142\"\" means to sell 200 units (usually shares, but in this case it would likely be gallons or barrels of orange juice or pounds or tons of frozen juice). In general, this could mean that you have 200 units and want to sell what you have. Or you could borrow 200 units from someone and sell those--this is called a naked short. In this case, it seems that what they are selling is a futures contract. With a futures contract, you are promising to obtain orange juice by some future date and sell it for the agreed price. You could own an orange grove and plan to turn your oranges into juice. Or you could buy a futures contract of oranges to turn into juice. Or you could arbitrage two futures contracts such that one supplies the other, what they're doing here. In general people make profits by buying low and selling high. In this case they did so in reverse order. They took the risk of selling before they had a supply. Then they covered their position by purchasing the supply. They profited because the price at which they bought was lower than the price at which they sold. The reason why this is necessary is that before buying the oranges, the orange juice makers need to know that they can make a profit. So they sell orange juice on the futures market. Then they know how much they can afford to pay for oranges on a different market. And the growers know how much they can get for oranges, so they can pay people to water and pick them. Without the futures markets, growers and orange juice makers would have to take all the risk themselves. This way, they can share risks with each other and financiers. Combined with insurance, this allows for predictable finances. Without it, growers would have to be wealthy to afford the variation in crop yields and prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "55022",
"title": "",
"text": "The most obvious use of a collateral is as a risk buffer. Just as when you borrow money to buy a house and the bank uses the house as a collateral, so when people borrow money to loan financial instruments (or as is more accurate, gain leverage) the lender keeps a percentage of that (or an equivalent instrument) as a collateral. In the event that the borrower falls short of margin requirements, brokers (in most cases) have the right to sell that collateral and mitigate the risk. Derivatives contracts, like any other financial instrument, come with their risks. And depending on their nature they may sometimes be much more riskier than their underlying instruments. For example, while a common stock's main risk comes from the movements in its price (which may itself result from many other macro/micro-economic factors), an option in that common stock faces risks from those factors plus the volatility of the stock's price. To cover this risk, lenders apply much higher haircuts when lending against these derivatives. In many cases, depending upon the notional exposure of the derivative, that actual dollar amount of the collateral may be more than the face value or the market value of the derivatives contract. Usually, this collateral is deposited not as the derivatives contract itself but rather as the underlying financial instrument (an equity in case of an option, a bond in case of a CDS, and so on). This allows the lender to offset the risk by executing a trade on that collateral itself."
},
{
"docid": "122050",
"title": "",
"text": "In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole."
},
{
"docid": "96211",
"title": "",
"text": "\"the Yen is *the source* of **\"\"carry trades\"\"**. It means whichever savvy people with means who want to borrow money to invest on a leveraged basis anywhere in the world, come running to borrow in yen. Why? Because (1) Japan is an advanced economy whose currency is freely convertible to many many currencies/countries who are happy to convert yen back and forth. (2) Japanese interest rates are low, lower than in the west b/c of their earlier deflationary crises due to too much debt and due to west requiring Yen to be too strong after the Plaza accords; so it's cheap to borrow there. So a lot of investment around the world has, in origin, come from borrowing in japan. As long as that investment is \"\"on\"\", the loan to japan remains outstanding. But the investor earns the \"\"carry\"\": the rate of difference between the cost of borrowing in Yen, and earning the return from whatever investment it is. When scary things happen (like war, disaster, coups etc) the big money bags/investors pull their money out of their investments and put it in their banks. This means they sell their investments, wherever they are, convert some of that money back into yent ( BUY YEN ) to return their yen loans. yen goes up.\""
},
{
"docid": "140371",
"title": "",
"text": "To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above."
},
{
"docid": "12378",
"title": "",
"text": "Firstly, the banks are far less risky than the people they lend to. Most of the interest banks charge borrowers covers defaults, but banks rarely default to the fed, especially those able to borrow from the Fed. Secondly, most banks borrowing is in the form of overnight loans to cover short term reserve fluctuations; they are not borrowing dollars to lend to you. Thirdly, if govt does it's job of keeping some competition in the banking sector, then the rates offered you and me should be near the actual cost to service such loans, so are the true value of those loans. Since there are a significant number of banks that I can borrow from with a multitude of options in how to borrow, there is likely still decent competition for my business. Finally, the Fed funds rate is not currently 0%, so the banks are not getting interest free money."
},
{
"docid": "274835",
"title": "",
"text": "In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker."
},
{
"docid": "520098",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\""
},
{
"docid": "523729",
"title": "",
"text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!"
},
{
"docid": "537153",
"title": "",
"text": "You will be charged a stock borrow fee, which is inversely related to the relative supply of the stock you are shorting. IB claims to pay a rebate on the short proceeds, which would offset part or all of that fee, but it doesn't appear relevant in your case because: It is a bit strange to me that IB would not require you to keep the cash in your account, as they need the cash to collateralize the stock borrow with the lending institution. In fact, per Regulation T, the short position requires an initial margin of 150%, which includes the short proceeds. As described by Investopedia: In the first table of Figure 1, a short sale is initiated for 1,000 shares at a price of $50. The proceeds of the short sale are $50,000, and this amount is deposited into the short sale margin account. Along with the proceeds of the sale, an additional 50% margin amount of $25,000 must be deposited in the account, bringing the total margin requirement to $75,000. At this time, the proceeds of the short sale must remain in the account; they cannot be removed or used to purchase other securities. Here is a good answer to your question from The Street: Even though you might see a balance in your brokerage account after shorting a stock, you're actually looking at a false credit, according to one big brokerage firm. That money is acting as collateral for the short position. So, you won't have use of these funds for investment purposes and won't earn interest on it. And there are indeed costs associated with shorting a stock. The broker has to find stock to loan to you. That might come out of a broker's own inventory or might be borrowed from another stock lender."
},
{
"docid": "179893",
"title": "",
"text": "For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales."
},
{
"docid": "205585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "237317",
"title": "",
"text": "A large number of bond holders decide to sell their bonds. If they all decide to do this at the same time then there will be a large supply of bonds being sold in the market. This will drive down the price of the bonds which will increase yields. Why do bond yields move inversely to bond prices? You purchase a $100 bond today that yields 5%. You spent $100. The very next day the same bonds are being sold with a yield of 10%. If you wanted to sell your bond to someone you would have to sell it so it competed with the new bonds being sold. You could not sell it for $100 which is what you paid for it. You would have to sell it for less than the $100 you paid for it in order for it to have the equivalent yield of the new bonds being sold with a 10% yield. This is why bond yields move inversely to bond prices. Why does rising yields increase the cost of borrowing? If someone is trying to sell new bonds they will have to sell bonds that compete with the yields of the current bonds already in the market. If yields are rising on the existing bonds then the issuer of the new bonds will have to pay higher interest rates to offer equivalent yields on the new bonds. The issuer is now paying more in interest making it more expensive to borrow money. What are the incentives for the bond vigilante to sell his/her bonds? One reason a bond holder will sell his/her bonds is they believe inflation will outpace the yield on the bond they are holding. If a bond yields 3% and inflation is at 5% then the bond holder is essentially losing purchasing power if they continue to hold onto the bond. Another reason to sell would be if the bond holder has doubts in the ability of the issuer to repay the interest and/or principal of the bond."
},
{
"docid": "258077",
"title": "",
"text": "A bit of poking around brought me to this thread on the Motley Fool, asking the same basic question: I think the problem is the stock price. For a stock to be sold short, it has to be marginable which means it has to trade over $ 5.00. The broker, therefore, can't borrow the stock for you to sell short because it isn't held in their clients' margin accounts. My guess is that Etrade, along with other brokers, simply exclude these stocks for short selling. Ivestopedia has an explanation of non-marginable securities. Specific to stocks under $5: Other securities, such as stocks with share prices under $5 or with extremely high betas, may be excluded at the discretion of the broker itself."
},
{
"docid": "22268",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\""
},
{
"docid": "172338",
"title": "",
"text": "The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online."
}
] |
6121 | What are my best options if I don't have a lot of credit lines for housing loans? | [
{
"docid": "394460",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Rather than trying to indirectly game your credit score, I would instead shop around and see if there are other lenders that will pre-qualify you with your credit the way it is today. BofA and other large banks can be very formulaic in how they qualify loans; a local bank or credit union may be more willing to bend the traditional \"\"rules\"\" and pre-qualify you. I'm thinking about using FHA. If you can put 20% down then a conventional mortgage will likely be cheaper than an FHA loan since FHA loans have mortgage insurance built-in while conventional mortgages typically don't require it if you borrow less than 80% of the house's value. I would shop around before jumping to an FHA loan.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "248578",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\""
},
{
"docid": "374211",
"title": "",
"text": "The buying service your credit union uses is similar to the one my credit union uses. I have used their service several times. There is no direct cost to use the service, though the credit union as a whole might have a fee to join the service. I have used it 4 times over the decades. If you know what make and model you want to purchase, or at least have it narrowed down to just a few choices, you can get an exact price for that make, model, and options. You do this before negotiating a price. You are then issued a certificate. You have to go to a specific salesman at a specific dealership, but near a large city there will be several dealers to pick from. There is no negotiating at the dealership. You still have to deal with a trade in, and the financing option: dealer, credit union, or cash. But it is nice to not have to negotiate on the price. Of course there is nobody to stop you from using the price from the buying service as a goal when visiting a more conveniently located dealership, that is what I did last time. The first couple of times I used the standard credit union financing, and the last time I didn't need a loan. Even if you don't use the buying service, one way to pay for the car is to get the loan from the credit union, but get the rebate from the dealer. Many times if you get the low dealer financing you can't get the rebate. Doing it this way actually saves money. Speaking of rebates see how the buying service addresses them. The big national rebates were still honored during at least one of my purchases. So it turned out to be the buying service price minus $1,000. If your service worked like my experience, the cost to you was a little time to get the price, and a little time in a different dealer to verify that the price was good."
},
{
"docid": "150893",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as \"\"investments\"\" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting. Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria: IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters. D - Depreciation; tax savings. E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much \"\"principle\"\" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil. A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time. L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA. When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it. Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL.\""
},
{
"docid": "180192",
"title": "",
"text": "I also am paying roughly twice as much in rent as a mortgage payment would be on the type of house I have been looking at, so I'd really like to purchase a house if possible. Sounds like I need to rain on your parade a bit: there's a lot more to owning a house than the mortgage. Property tax, insurance, PMI, and maintenance are things that throw this off. You'll also be paying more interest than normal given your recent credit history. It's still possible that buying is better than renting, but one really should run the detailed math on this. For example, looking at houses around where I live, insurance, property tax and special assessments over the course of a year roughly equal the mortgage payments annually. You probably won't be able to get a loan just yet. If you've just started your new job it will take a while to build a documentable income history sufficient for lenders. But take heart! As you take the next year to save up a down payment / build up an emergency fund you'll discover that credit score improves with time. However, it's crucial that you don't do anything to mess with the score. Pay all your bills on time. Don't take out a car loan. Don't close your old revolving accounts. But most of all, don't worry. Rent hurts (I rent too) but in many parts of the US owning hurts more, as your property values fall. A house down the street from my dear old mother has been on the market for several months at a price 33 percent lower than her most recent appraisals. I'm comfortable waiting until markets stabilize / start rising before jumping on real estate."
},
{
"docid": "354785",
"title": "",
"text": "As pointed out in a comment, it would be more natural to get a regular mortgage on the second house, which is essentially using the second house as collateral for its own loan. If you are to use the first house, either mortgage it or get a home equity line of credit on it and use that money to buy the second house. The relative merits of the options may depend in part on where you live, whether or not you live in the homes, and the relative cost of the two properties. For example, in the US, first and second homes get preferred tax treatment in addition to rates that are typically better than commercial loans (including mortgages for investment properties). If you're going to get a better rate and pay less taxes on one option and not on the others, that's definitely something to weigh."
},
{
"docid": "271525",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, pay off the highest interest first. If you have 80%, pay it first. Paying off a card/loan with a lower rate, but a lower payment or a lower balance can help your mental capacity by having fewer things to pay. But, this should be a decision where things are similar, such as 20-25%, not 20-80%. What about any actual loans? Any loans with a fixed payment and a fixed amount? If you must continue to use CC while paying them off, use the one with the lowest interest rate. Call all of your debtors and ask for reduction in interest rate. This is not the option to take first... This is a strategic possibility and will cause credit score issues... If you are considering bankruptcy or not paying back some, then you have even more negotiation power. Consider calling them all and telling them that you only have a little bit of money and would like to negotiate a settlement with them. \"\"I have only a limited amount of money, and lots of debt. I will pay back whomever gives me the best deal.\"\" See what they say. They may not negotiate until you stop paying them for a few months... It is not uncommon to get them to reduce interest (even to 0%) and/or take a reduction in the amount due - up to 25 cents on the dollar. To do this, you might need to pay the amount all at once, so look into loans from sources like retirement, home equity, life insurance, family... Also, cut out all expenses. Cut them hard; cut until it hurts. Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home. No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes... Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food. Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries). Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends. Having family or friends live with you and pay rent. Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income. Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare. Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career. Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus. Work 4/10's. Telework. Make a list of every expense and prioritize them. Only keep things which are really necessary. Good Luck.\""
},
{
"docid": "123013",
"title": "",
"text": "On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion."
},
{
"docid": "390359",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I invested in Prosper.com loans. I'm getting out. I only have about $37 left, and as the principal is doled back to me, I withdraw the money. The default rate I experienced was over 30%. Only six of the 53 loans I invested in were with borrowers whose credit rating was less than \"\"A.\"\" Borrowers with a rating of \"\"A\"\" and \"\"AA\"\" had a higher proportion of defaults that those below \"\"A\"\". Some of my blogging colleagues were wise enough not to start this game. Some who invest in other P2P lending are almost certainly doing it with \"\"found money.\"\" They post articles with affiliate links. As people sign up, they get the commissions deposited in their accounts, which they invest. As they update their blogs with the returns on their portfolio, it serves to encourage more signups, and the machine continues on. Even if they lose money on the invested loans, they're still ahead. To paraphrase John Chow's tagline: They make money with Lending Club by telling people how much money they're making with Lending Club. It's almost like investing with the house's money. My high default rate might be because I started earlier in the game. Borrower screening and criteria have gotten tighter with time. I don't recommend investing in P2P loans. My experience has been that a large percentage of borrowers requesting loans on these sites have run out of options, which the credit reporting doesn't reflect accurately enough.\""
},
{
"docid": "114303",
"title": "",
"text": "what you aim to do is a great idea and it will work in your favor for a number of reasons. First, paying down your loan early will save you lots in interest, no brainer. Second, keeping the account open will improve your credit score by 1) increases the number of installment trade lines you have open, 2)adds to your positive payment history and 3) varies your credit mix. If your paid your car off you will see a DROP in your credit score because now you have one less trade line. To address other issues as far as credit scoring, it does not matter(much) for your score if you have a $1000 car loan or a $100,000 car loan. what matters is whether or not you pay on time, and what your balance is compared to the original loan amount. So the quicker you pay DOWN the loans or mortgages the better. Pay them down, not off! As far how the extra payments will report, one of two things will happen. Either they will report every month paid as agreed (most likely), or they wont report anything for a few years until your next payment is due(unlikely, this wont hurt you but wont help you either). Someone posted they would lower the amount you paid every month on your report and thus lower your score. This is not true. even if they reported you paid $1/ month the scoring calculations do not care. All they care is whether or not you're on time, and in your case you would be months AHEAD of time(even though your report cant reflect this fact either) HOWEVER, if you are applying for a mortgage the lower monthly payment WOULD affect you in the sense that now you qualify for a BIGGER loan because now your debt to income ratio has improved. People will argue to just pay it off and be debt free, however being debt free does NOT help your credit. And being that you own a home and a car you see the benefits of good credit. You can have a million dollars in the bank but you will be denied a loan if you have NO or bad credit. Nothing wrong with living on cash, I've done it for years, but good luck trying to rent a car, or getting the best insurance rates, and ANYTHING in life with poor credit. Yeah it sucks but you have to play the game. I would not pay down do $1 though because like someone else said they may just close the account. Pay it down to 10 or 20 percent and you will see the most impact on your credit and invest the rest of your cash elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "225522",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest concern is how you get $250,000 in unsecured credit. It's unlikely that you will be loaned that amount at a percentage lower than what you expect to earn. Unsecured credit lines are rarely lower than 10% and usually approach 20%. On top of that, for a bank to approve you for that credit line, you have to have a high credit score and an income to support the payments on that credit line. But lets suspend disbelief and assume that you can get the money you want on loan. You would then be expected to pay back that 10%, but investments don't go up uniformly. Some years they go up 15-20% and other years they go down 10%. What do you do if you have to sell some of your investments in a down year? That money is no longer invested, and you can't recover it with the following up year because you had to take too much out to cover the loan payments. You'll be out of money long before the loan is repaid because you can expect there will be bad years in the stock market that will eat away at your investment. There were a lot of people who took their money out of the market after the crash of 2008. If they had left their money in through 2009, they would have made all that money back, but if you have a loan to pay you have to pull money out in the bad years as well as the good years. Unless you have a lucky streak of all good years, you're doomed."
},
{
"docid": "235974",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If the job looks good, I wouldn't let having to relocate stop you. Some companies will help you with relocation expenses, like paying travel expenses, the movers, the security deposit on an apartment, etc. It doesn't hurt to ask if they \"\"help with moving expenses\"\". If they say no, fine. I wouldn't expect a company to decide not to hire you for asking such a question. I would certainly not buy immediately upon moving. Buying a house is a serious long-term commitment. What if after a few months you discover that this job is not what you thought it was? What if you discover that you hate the area for whatever reason? Etc. Or even if you are absolutely sure that won't happen, it's very hard to buy a house long distance. How many trips can you make to look at different houses, learn about neighborhoods, get a feel for market prices, etc? A few years ago I moved just a couple of hundred miles to a neighboring state, and I rented an apartment for about 2 years before buying a house, for all these reasons. Assuming the company won't help with moving expenses, do you have the cash to make the move? If you're tight, it doesn't have to be all that expensive. If you're six months out of college you probably don't have a lot of stuff. (When I got my first job out of college, I fit everything I owned in the back seat of my Pinto, and tied my one piece of furniture to the roof. :-) If you can't fit all your stuff in your car, rent a truck and a tow bar to pull your car behind. Get a cheap apartment. You'll probably have to pay the first month's rent plus a security deposit. You can usually furnish your first apartment from garage sales and the like very cheaply. If you don't have the cash, do you have credit cards, or can your parents loan you some money? (They might be willing to loan you money to get you out of their house!)\""
},
{
"docid": "354618",
"title": "",
"text": "Great question. First, my recommendation would be for you to get a card that does not have a yearly fee. There are many credit cards out there that provide cash back on your purchases or points to redeem for gift cards or other items. Be sure to cancel the credit card that you have now so you don't forget about that yearly fee. Canceling will have a temporary impact on your credit score if the credit card is your longest held line of credit. Second, it is recommended not to use more than 20% of all the available credit, staying above that line can affect your credit score. I think that is what you are hearing about running up large balances on your credit card. If you are worried about staying below the 20% line, you can always request a larger line of credit. Just keep paying it off each month though and you will be fine. You already have a history of credit if you have begun paying off your student loans."
},
{
"docid": "567206",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \"\"major\"\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\""
},
{
"docid": "271110",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\""
},
{
"docid": "60981",
"title": "",
"text": "So if I understand your plan right, this will be your situation after the house is bought: Total Debt: 645,000 Here's what I would do: Wait until your house sells before buying a new one. That way you can take the equity from that sale and apply it towards the down payment rather than taking a loan on your retirement account. If something happens and your house doesn't sell for as mush as you think it will, you'll lose out on the gains from the amount you borrow, which will more than offset the interest you are paying yourself. AT WORST, pay off the 401(k) loan the instant your sale closes. Take as much of the remaining equity as you can and start paying down student loans. There are several reasons why they are a higher priority than a mortgage - some are mathematical, some are not. Should I look to pay off student loans sooner (even if I refi at a lower rate of 3.5% or so), or the mortgage earlier ... My thoughts are that the student loans follow me for life, but I can always sell and buy another home So you want this baggage for the rest of your life? How liberating will it be when you get that off your back? How much investing are you missing out on because of student loan payments? What happens if you get lose your license? What if you become disabled? Student loans are not bankruptable, but you can always sell the asset behind a mortgage or car loan. They are worse than credit card debt in that sense. You have no tangible asset behind it and no option for forgiveness (unless you decide to practice in a high-need area, but I don't get the sense that that's your path). The difference in interest is generally only a few payment' worth over 15 years. Is the interest amortized the same as a 15 year if I pay a 30 year mortgage in 15 years? Yes, however the temptation to just pay it off over 30 years is still there. How often will you decide that a bigger car payment, or a vacation, or something else is more important? With a 15-year note you lock in a plan and stick to it. Some other options:"
},
{
"docid": "104857",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\""
},
{
"docid": "425994",
"title": "",
"text": "Eventually you are going to need some sort of real credit history. It is possible that you will be able to evade this if you never buy a house, or if you pay cash for any house/condo/car/boat/etc that you buy. Even employers check credit history these days. I wouldn't be surprised if some medical professionals such as surgeons check it also. Obviously if you have a mortgage and car loan this doesn't apply, but I'd be curious how you acquired those unless you have substantial income and/or assets. Combine this with the fact that certain things like renting a car essentially require a credit card (because they need to put a hold on more money than they are actually going to take out of your card, so they can take that money if you don't bring the car back), and I think you should have a credit card unless you and your wife are individuals with zero impulse control, which sounds highly improbable. If your concern is the financial liability of the credit line, just keep the credit line low."
},
{
"docid": "205196",
"title": "",
"text": "My son who is now 21 has never needed me to cosign on a loan for him and I did not need to establish any sort of credit rating for him to establish his own credit. One thing I would suggest is ditch the bank and use a credit union. I have used one for many years and opened an account there for my son as soon as he got his first job. He was able to get a debit card to start which doesn't build credit score but establishes his account work the credit union. He was able to get his first credit card through the same credit union without falling work the bureaucratic BS that comes with dealing with a large bank. His interest rate may be a bit higher due to his lack of credit score initially but because we taught him about finance it isn't really relevant because he doesn't carry a balance. He has also been able to get a student loan without needing a cosigner so he can attend college. The idea that one needs to have a credit score established before being an adult is a fallacy. Like my son, I started my credit on my own and have never needed a cosigner whether it was my first credit card at 17 (the credit union probably shouldn't have done that since i wasn't old enough to be legally bound), my first car at 18 or my first home at 22. For both my son and I, knowing how to use credit responsibly was far more valuable than having a credit score early. Before your children are 18 opening credit accounts with them as the primary account holder can be problematic because they aren't old enough to be legally liable for the debt. Using them as a cosigner is even more problematic for the same reason. Each financial institution will have their own rules and I certainly don't know them all. For what you are proposing I would suggest a small line of credit with a credit union. Being small and locally controlled you will probably find that you have the best luck there."
},
{
"docid": "590623",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here."
}
] |
6121 | What are my best options if I don't have a lot of credit lines for housing loans? | [
{
"docid": "289231",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "991",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question asked in your last paragraph (what's the downside) is answered simply; if you take out a loan and close the cards, that's a ding on your score because your leverage ratio on this portion of your credit jumps to 100% or more, and because you'll be reducing the average age of your lines of credit (one line of credit a few days old versus five lines of credit several years old each). If you take out the loan and don't close the accounts, it's one more line of credit, increasing your total credit, lowering your leverage, but making institutions more reluctant to give you any more credit until they see what you'll do with what you have. In either case, assuming you can get the loan at less than the average rate of the cards (that's actually not a guarantee; a lot of lenders will want APRs in the 20s or 30s even for a title loan or other collateralized loan), then your cost of capital will also go down. That gives you more of a gap of discretionary income that you can better use to \"\"snowball\"\" all this debt as you are planning. Another thing to keep in mind is that the minimum payment changes as the balance does. The minimum payment covers monthly interest at least, and therefore varies based on your interest rate (usually variable) and your balance (which will hopefully be decreasing). A constant payment over the current minimum, much like a more traditional amortization, would be preferable.\""
},
{
"docid": "537593",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, it's a good idea to have a separate business account for your business because it makes accounting and bookkeeping that much easier. You can open a business checking account and there will be various options for types of accounts and fees. You may or may not want an overdraft account, for example, or a separate business credit card just so you can more easily separate those expenses from your personal cards. When I started my business, I opened a business checking account and met with my banker every year just to show them how the business was doing and to keep the relationship going. Eventually, when I wanted to establish a business line of credit, it was easier to set up because I they were already familiar with my business, its revenue, and needs for a line of credit. You can set up a solo 401k with your bank, too, and they'll be very happy to do so, but I recommend shopping around for options. I've found that the dedicated investment firms (Schwab, Fidelity, etc.) tend to have better options, fees, and features for investment accounts. Just because a specific bank handles your checking account doesn't mean you need to use that bank for everything. Lastly, I use completely different banks for my personal life and for my business. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I just don't want all my finances in the same place for both privacy reasons and to avoid having all my eggs in the same basket. Just something to consider -- I don't really have a completely sane reason for using completely different banks, but it helps me sleep."
},
{
"docid": "463885",
"title": "",
"text": "Your current loan is for a new car. Your refinanced loan would probably be for a used car. They have different underwriting standards and used car loan rates are usually higher because of the higher risks associated with the loans. (People with better credit will tend to buy new cars.) This doesn't mean that you can't come out ahead after refinancing but you'll probably have to do a bit of searching. I think you should take a step back though. 5% isn't that much money and five years is a long time. Nobody can predict the future but my experience tells me that the **** is going to hit the fan at least once over any five year period, and it's going to be a really big dump at least once over any ten year period. Do you have savings to cover it or would you have to take a credit card advance at a much higher interest rate? Are you even sure that's an option - a lot of people who planned to use their credit card advances as emergency savings found their credit limits slashed before they could act. I understand the desire to reduce what you pay in interest but BTDT and now I don't hesitate to give savings priority when I have some excess cash. There's no one size fits all answer but should have at least one or two months of income saved up before you start considering anything like loan prepayments."
},
{
"docid": "96150",
"title": "",
"text": "\"TL;DR: It doesn't matter. At a point of sufficient credit score, your income is far more important, for loan approval, than your credit score. Apparently this was a big mistake because it caused my score to drop to 744 Not really, except for the questionability of opening a margin account. A credit score of 744 is sufficient for the best rates. Credit score algorithms are dynamic and advice that may have been good in years past may not be applicable today. Pay your bills and don't have unnecessary credit, that will lead to your best credit score. For me, despite not following conventional wisdom, I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life. I have closed accounts that are just unnecessary and have done some other things that the experts say I should not do to keep a high credit score. However, all that doesn't matter. I do not have a need for credit and will likely never have a need beyond my rebate card. I feel like this is also true for you. What difference does it make if you have an 822 or a 744? Probably none. At that point, your income counts more toward loan eligibility.\""
},
{
"docid": "374211",
"title": "",
"text": "The buying service your credit union uses is similar to the one my credit union uses. I have used their service several times. There is no direct cost to use the service, though the credit union as a whole might have a fee to join the service. I have used it 4 times over the decades. If you know what make and model you want to purchase, or at least have it narrowed down to just a few choices, you can get an exact price for that make, model, and options. You do this before negotiating a price. You are then issued a certificate. You have to go to a specific salesman at a specific dealership, but near a large city there will be several dealers to pick from. There is no negotiating at the dealership. You still have to deal with a trade in, and the financing option: dealer, credit union, or cash. But it is nice to not have to negotiate on the price. Of course there is nobody to stop you from using the price from the buying service as a goal when visiting a more conveniently located dealership, that is what I did last time. The first couple of times I used the standard credit union financing, and the last time I didn't need a loan. Even if you don't use the buying service, one way to pay for the car is to get the loan from the credit union, but get the rebate from the dealer. Many times if you get the low dealer financing you can't get the rebate. Doing it this way actually saves money. Speaking of rebates see how the buying service addresses them. The big national rebates were still honored during at least one of my purchases. So it turned out to be the buying service price minus $1,000. If your service worked like my experience, the cost to you was a little time to get the price, and a little time in a different dealer to verify that the price was good."
},
{
"docid": "35518",
"title": "",
"text": "Alright so you have $12,000 and you want to know what to do with it. The main thing here is, you're new to investments. I suggest you don't do anything quick and start learning about the different kinds of investment options that can be available to you with returns you might appreciate. The most important questions to ask yourself is what are your life goals? What kind of financial freedom do you want, and how important is this $12,000 dollars to you in achieving your life goals. My best advice to you and to anyone else who is looking for a place to put their money in big or small amounts when they have earned this money not from an investment but hard work is to find a talented and professional financial advisor. You need to be educated on the options you have, and keep them in lines of what risks you are willing to take and how important that principal investment is to you. Investing your money is not easy at all, and novices tend to lose their money a lot. The same way you would ask a lawyer for law advice, its best to consult a financial planner for advice, or so they can invest that money for you."
},
{
"docid": "354785",
"title": "",
"text": "As pointed out in a comment, it would be more natural to get a regular mortgage on the second house, which is essentially using the second house as collateral for its own loan. If you are to use the first house, either mortgage it or get a home equity line of credit on it and use that money to buy the second house. The relative merits of the options may depend in part on where you live, whether or not you live in the homes, and the relative cost of the two properties. For example, in the US, first and second homes get preferred tax treatment in addition to rates that are typically better than commercial loans (including mortgages for investment properties). If you're going to get a better rate and pay less taxes on one option and not on the others, that's definitely something to weigh."
},
{
"docid": "114303",
"title": "",
"text": "what you aim to do is a great idea and it will work in your favor for a number of reasons. First, paying down your loan early will save you lots in interest, no brainer. Second, keeping the account open will improve your credit score by 1) increases the number of installment trade lines you have open, 2)adds to your positive payment history and 3) varies your credit mix. If your paid your car off you will see a DROP in your credit score because now you have one less trade line. To address other issues as far as credit scoring, it does not matter(much) for your score if you have a $1000 car loan or a $100,000 car loan. what matters is whether or not you pay on time, and what your balance is compared to the original loan amount. So the quicker you pay DOWN the loans or mortgages the better. Pay them down, not off! As far how the extra payments will report, one of two things will happen. Either they will report every month paid as agreed (most likely), or they wont report anything for a few years until your next payment is due(unlikely, this wont hurt you but wont help you either). Someone posted they would lower the amount you paid every month on your report and thus lower your score. This is not true. even if they reported you paid $1/ month the scoring calculations do not care. All they care is whether or not you're on time, and in your case you would be months AHEAD of time(even though your report cant reflect this fact either) HOWEVER, if you are applying for a mortgage the lower monthly payment WOULD affect you in the sense that now you qualify for a BIGGER loan because now your debt to income ratio has improved. People will argue to just pay it off and be debt free, however being debt free does NOT help your credit. And being that you own a home and a car you see the benefits of good credit. You can have a million dollars in the bank but you will be denied a loan if you have NO or bad credit. Nothing wrong with living on cash, I've done it for years, but good luck trying to rent a car, or getting the best insurance rates, and ANYTHING in life with poor credit. Yeah it sucks but you have to play the game. I would not pay down do $1 though because like someone else said they may just close the account. Pay it down to 10 or 20 percent and you will see the most impact on your credit and invest the rest of your cash elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "390359",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I invested in Prosper.com loans. I'm getting out. I only have about $37 left, and as the principal is doled back to me, I withdraw the money. The default rate I experienced was over 30%. Only six of the 53 loans I invested in were with borrowers whose credit rating was less than \"\"A.\"\" Borrowers with a rating of \"\"A\"\" and \"\"AA\"\" had a higher proportion of defaults that those below \"\"A\"\". Some of my blogging colleagues were wise enough not to start this game. Some who invest in other P2P lending are almost certainly doing it with \"\"found money.\"\" They post articles with affiliate links. As people sign up, they get the commissions deposited in their accounts, which they invest. As they update their blogs with the returns on their portfolio, it serves to encourage more signups, and the machine continues on. Even if they lose money on the invested loans, they're still ahead. To paraphrase John Chow's tagline: They make money with Lending Club by telling people how much money they're making with Lending Club. It's almost like investing with the house's money. My high default rate might be because I started earlier in the game. Borrower screening and criteria have gotten tighter with time. I don't recommend investing in P2P loans. My experience has been that a large percentage of borrowers requesting loans on these sites have run out of options, which the credit reporting doesn't reflect accurately enough.\""
},
{
"docid": "248578",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\""
},
{
"docid": "571694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Don't use a \"\"credit repair\"\" agency. They are scams. One of the myriad of ways in which they work is by setting you up with a bogus loan, which they will dutifully report you as paying on time. They'll pretend to be a used car dealer or some other credit-based merchant. For a time, this will actually work. This is called \"\"false reporting.\"\" The problem is, the data clearinghouses are not stupid and eventually realize some hole-in-the-wall \"\"car dealer\"\" with no cars on the lot (yes, they do physical inspections as part of the credentialing process, just sometimes they're a little slow about it) is reporting trade lines worth millions of dollars per year. It's a major problem in the industry. But eventually that business loses its fraudulent reporting ability, those trade lines get revoked, and your account gets flagged for a fraud investigation. The repair agency has your money, and you still don't have good credit. Bad news if this all goes down while you're trying to close on a house. You're better off trying to settle your debts (usually for 50%) or declaring bankruptcy altogether. The latter isn't so bad if you're in a stable home, because you won't be able to get an apartment for a while, credit cards or a good deal on auto financing. ED: I just saw what one agency was charging, and can tell you declaring bankruptcy costs only a few hundred dollars more than the repair agency and is 100% guaranteed to get you predictable results as long as you name all your debts up front and aren't getting reamed by student loans. And considering you can't stomach creditors-- well guess what, now you'll have a lawyer to deal with them for you. Anything you accomplish through an agency will eventually be reversed because it's fraudulent. But through bankruptcy, your credit will start improving within two years, the tradeoff being that you won't be able to get a mortgage (at all) or apartment (easily) during that time-- so find a place to hunker down for a few years before you declare.\""
},
{
"docid": "510219",
"title": "",
"text": "I recognize you are probably somewhere in the middle of various steps here... but I'd start and go through one-by-one in a disciplined way. That helps to cut through the overwhelming torrent of information that's out there. Here is my start at a general checklist: others can feel free to edit it or add their input. How 'much' house would you like to buy in terms of $$$ and bedrooms/sq ft. You can start pretty general here, but the idea is to figure out if you can actually afford a brand new 4bd/3ba 2,500 sq ft house (upwards of $500K in your neck of the woods according to trulia.com). Or maybe with your current resources you'll be looking at something like a townhome that is more entry-level but still yours. Some might recommend that this is a good time to talk to any significant others/whomevers and understand/manage expectations. My wife usually cares a lot about schools at this stage, but I think it's too early. Just ballpark whether you're looking at a $500K house, a $300K house, or a $200K townhome. How much house can you afford in terms of monthly payments only... (not considering other costs like utilities yet). Looking around at calculators like this one from bankrate.com can help you figure this out. Set the interest rate @ 5%, 30-year loan, and change the 'mortgage amount' until you have something that is about 80%-90% of what you currently pay in rent each month. I'll get to 'why' to undershoot your rent payment later. Crap... can't afford my dream house... If you don't have the down payment to make the numbers work (remember that this doesn't even include closing costs yet), there are other loan options like FHA loans that can go as low as about 5% down payment. The math would be the same but you replace 0.8 with 0.95. Then, look at your personal budget. Come up with general estimates of what you currently bring in and spend each month overall. Just ballpark it... Next, figure what you currently spend towards housing in particular. Whether you are paying for it or your landlord is paying for it, someone pays for a lot of different things for housing. For now, my list would include (1) Rent, (2) Mortgage Payment, (3) Electricity, (4) Gas, (5) Sewer, (6) Water, (7) Trash, (8) Other utilities... TV/Internet/Phone, (9) Property Insurance, (10) Renter's Insurance, and (11) Property Taxes. I would put it into a table in Excel somewhere that has 3 columns... The first has the labels, the second will have what you spend now, and the third will have what you might spend on each one as a homeowner. If you pay it now, put it in the second column. If your landlord pays it right now, leave it out as that's included in your rent payment. Obviously each cell won't be filled in. Fill in the rest of the third column. You won't pay rent anymore, but you will have a mortgage payment. You probably have a good estimate of any electricity bills, etc that you currently pay, but those may be slightly higher in a house vs. a condo or an apartment. As for things like sewer, water, trash or other 'community' utilities, my bet would be that your landlord pays for those. If you need a good estimate ask around with some co-workers or friends that own their own places. They would also be a good resource for property insurance estimates... shooting from the hip I would say about $100/month based on this website. (I'm not affiliated). The real 'ouch' is going to be property tax rates. Based on the data from this website, your county is about 9% of property value. So add that into the third column as well. Can you really afford a house? round 2 Now... add up the third column and see how that monthly expense amount on housing compares against your current monthly budget. If it's over, you don't have to give up, but you should just understand how much your decision to purchase a house will strain your budget. Also, you should use this information to look again at 'how much house can you afford.' Now, do some more research. If you need to get a revised loan amount based on the FHA loan decision, then use the bankrate calculator to find out what the monthly payment is for a 95% loan against your target price. But remember that an FHA loan will also carry PMI that is extra on top of your monthly payment. Or, if you need to revise your mortgage payment downwards (or upwards) change the loan amount accordingly. Once you've got the numbers set, look for properties that fit. This way you can have a meaningful discussion with yourself or other stakeholders about what you can afford. As far as arranging financing... a realtor will be able and willing to point you in the right direction for obtaining funding, etc. And at that point you can just check anything you're offered by shopping interest rates, etc against what the internet has to say. Feel free to ask us, too... it's hard to give much better direction without more specifics."
},
{
"docid": "118999",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for \"\"passive\"\" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)\""
},
{
"docid": "150893",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as \"\"investments\"\" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting. Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria: IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters. D - Depreciation; tax savings. E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much \"\"principle\"\" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil. A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time. L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA. When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it. Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL.\""
},
{
"docid": "559745",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@fredsbend, Hope this helps! \"\"I understand that a reverse mortgage can be paid out in two ways: A lump sum and monthly payments. I figure that if you take the lump sum, eventually, the bank wants you to start paying it back.\"\" Answer: Actually, there are 3 payout options, or 4 if you consider a combination payout as another one. There's a lump sum, a line of credit, or the monthly payout, or a combination. \"\"I figure that if you take the monthly payments, eventually, the bank stops paying out and wants you to pay it back. In both situations, interest accrues and this is how the bank makes money off of the deal\"\". Answer: The only time the monthly payments would stop would be if the borrower defaults on the lenders' terms or they no longer live at home. You are right though, and interest does accrue on whichever payment is decided on. I'm not sure how the lender makes money, probably by the interest, but I know borrowers are protected against high rates and owing more than your house. Here's an article I found that goes over the protections more in detail: https://www.americanadvisorsgroup.com/news/6-consumer-protections-reverse-mortgage-loan-borrowers. \"\"But what determines when you have to begin paying back the reverse mortgage? Some sources online seem to say that it's based only on if you die or would like to sell/move. That can't be right in all situations, because you could end up with a massive debt on a property more than its value.\"\" Answer: There are a lot of protections or regulations in place to protect anyone who takes out a reverse mortgage. One being, you can't owe MORE than your house is valued at during the time of repayment, a reverse mortgage is a non-recourse loan. In the instance that your house is less than you owe, you either sell the home and the proceeds are used to pay the loan and you keep the rest OR if you owe more than the house proceeds of the home go to the lender. Either way, you're not left paying for a \"\"mortgage\"\" without the house. In the case the parent, grandparent passes, then the heirs would have a choice of either paying back the reverse mortgage in payments, OR they can sell the house, heirs are protected during this as well to make sure they're not left with major debt in case of anything. Is there a formula to figure out when the bank stops the monthly payments and then wants it back? **Answer:**The amount becomes due if loan terms are not met, but the lender will discuss the options if it comes to that. Is there a different formula for when the lump sum would have to be paid back?\"\" Answer: Each payout option has the same terms and the same pay back terms. As long as terms are met, the lender can't ask for early repayment.\""
},
{
"docid": "235974",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If the job looks good, I wouldn't let having to relocate stop you. Some companies will help you with relocation expenses, like paying travel expenses, the movers, the security deposit on an apartment, etc. It doesn't hurt to ask if they \"\"help with moving expenses\"\". If they say no, fine. I wouldn't expect a company to decide not to hire you for asking such a question. I would certainly not buy immediately upon moving. Buying a house is a serious long-term commitment. What if after a few months you discover that this job is not what you thought it was? What if you discover that you hate the area for whatever reason? Etc. Or even if you are absolutely sure that won't happen, it's very hard to buy a house long distance. How many trips can you make to look at different houses, learn about neighborhoods, get a feel for market prices, etc? A few years ago I moved just a couple of hundred miles to a neighboring state, and I rented an apartment for about 2 years before buying a house, for all these reasons. Assuming the company won't help with moving expenses, do you have the cash to make the move? If you're tight, it doesn't have to be all that expensive. If you're six months out of college you probably don't have a lot of stuff. (When I got my first job out of college, I fit everything I owned in the back seat of my Pinto, and tied my one piece of furniture to the roof. :-) If you can't fit all your stuff in your car, rent a truck and a tow bar to pull your car behind. Get a cheap apartment. You'll probably have to pay the first month's rent plus a security deposit. You can usually furnish your first apartment from garage sales and the like very cheaply. If you don't have the cash, do you have credit cards, or can your parents loan you some money? (They might be willing to loan you money to get you out of their house!)\""
},
{
"docid": "389916",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, let me mention that the reasons mentioned this far for renting are excellent ones. But, I disagree. Second, I would like to mention that I'm just a regular Joe, not an accountant, or a realtor. That said, I was in a similar situation not that long ago. I ended up renting, but I wish I hadn't. You should check out the \"\"offers\"\" in your area. You seem like you're willing to compromise on a more standard, or older home. If that is the case and you are willing to \"\"settle\"\" for an older town-home, or something similar, it might be in your best interest to do so. In my area for instance, the urban areas are becoming a bit crowded. This is good news for the people who already own homes in those urban areas, but bad news for people who are looking to rent an apartment (which tend to be located in urban areas) or buy a house in these urban areas. The reason I say that is simple; there is only one thing there will never be more of: land. If people are moving into these areas, and there is limited room to build structures, the demand is going up while the supply is unable to keep up. This means an increase in prices. BUT, this can also be used to your advantage. As the demand for those urban areas goes up, the rural areas around the urban areas are likely to be subsidized. For instance, near me, if you're willing to be 20 minutes from the nearest Walmart and you have a 550+ credit score and a stable income, you're able to acquire a government subsidized loan with 0% down. (I would recommend dropping at least SOMETHING, however, if possible.) Apartments of the size your family is going to require are going to be expensive. People who own apartment buildings are looking to make the most money per square foot. This means most apartment complexes are going to be filled with 1-2 bedroom apartments, but have very few if any 3+ bedroom apartments. (Again, this is my general experience, but it may be different where you're living.) I suspect the apartment your family is going to need is going to end up being very expensive, especially if people are moving into your town. You might consider trying to get a lower-quality house as apposed to a rare and large apartment for a few pretty obvious reasons: Don't misunderstand me, though. A lot of people get infatuated with the idea of being a home owner, and end up getting into something they will never be able to maintain, and if that happens it's something that's going to follow you for the rest of your life. As for your student loans, if you NEED to and you qualify you can apply for hardship. This would mean that you don't have to pay anything, or pay a reduced rate for some arbitrary approved amount of time, or until some arbitrary circumstance is met. However, do not take this lightly. While doing this might not necessarily accrue interest (depending on whether or not your loans were subsidized or unsubsidized and a host of other factors it might actually halt interest) these loans will follow you even into bankruptcy. Meaning if you get your student loans postponed and end up losing the house anyway, you have to make a fresh start with a bankruptcy AND student loans on your back. Furthermore, you can't count your chickens before they hatch, and neither will the banks. A big part of qualifying for a loan is your proof of income. If you haven't had that steady job for 6 months to a year or more, you're going to have a tough time getting a loan. Suppose your wife-to-be DOES start making that income...it's still not going to make a difference to the banks until they can say that it's not just a month long fling. Last, after reading all this I want to tell you that I am BIAS. I happened to miss the opportunity I'm explaining to you now, and that affects what I think you should do in this situation. Weigh the options carefully and objectively. Talk to your fiance. Talk to your friends, parents, anyone who is close with you. Come to an educated decision, rather than the decision that might be more exciting, or the one you WISH you could take. Good luck.\""
},
{
"docid": "85697",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't need a credit score. After I paid off my house mortgage many years ago I had this discussion with my mortgage agent (now bank VP). Your credit score is not a measure your ability to repay. It is a behavioral model and a statistical measure of the likelihood that the banks will make money off of you when they give you a loan, and a marketing tool that the banking industry uses to sell you long term and short term debt (mortgages and credit cards). Statistically speaking, people who close out major loans change their behaviors, and the model captures this change in behavior. In my own case, even though I have a credit history and sufficient cash is the bank to buy my next home outright, I have no credit score . What the model says is that people with my behavioral profile are not likely to take a loan, and if they did take one, they would pay it back so quickly that the bank would not even recoup the cost of initiating the loan. In short, people with my profile are bad news for the loans side of the bank. Thanks @quid for suggesting I capture this and post it as an answer"
},
{
"docid": "44258",
"title": "",
"text": "You need to know that the loan will cost you additional money every month. You need to know how you are going to pay that overhead in addition to what you're already paying. The best answer is to reduce your spending to build up a reserve you feel comfortable with, and then NOT spend that reserve except in emergencies. If you need a short-term answer, I'd suggest borrowing from relatives. Failing that, I'd suggest talking to a bank about establishing a line of credit but NOT drawing upon it until and unless you have Absolutely No Other Choice. That gives you a preapproved option when you need it at (usually) a much, much better rate than credit cards... without costing you anything until and unless you actually do need the money, and (if you don't have it set up to kick in automatically on overdrafts) without making it so easy to get to that you're tempted to use it before you must."
}
] |
6122 | Better to rent condo to daughter or put her on title? | [
{
"docid": "496166",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Obviously you have done well financially in order to be able to purchase a condo for cash, presumably, without risk of your other obligations. To put things in perspective, we are probably talking about less than $5,000 in tax savings. If she is on the title then she is a co-owner. Are you okay with that? You would essentially be giving this child a 50% stake in a property without compensation. Will your other children be okay with it? As your question stated you would prefer to not have her as an owner. However, is it better to not have her as an owner, So I would buy the condo without her on the title and just pay the extra $100 per month in property tax. It is probably \"\"small potatoes\"\" in comparison to your net worth. I would also only charge her at most your cost of carrying the property as rent. While you will create income all of it (and probably more) could be written off as costs. There should be no income tax burden created from this situation. Your accountant can help with any paperwork that needs to be filed.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "544663",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US. Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale. This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees. Yes you read this right. In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job). [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me. Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk. Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold. My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house. So sale price minus loan amount divided between us. This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract. I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising). After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down. To paraphrase she said, \"\"We are going to file now. My assistant is in the court clerk's office. You can tell the court whatever you want. Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance. But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one. And you will pay for me the entire time. And this will be a lengthy process. You would be better served to pay my client half now.\"\" Her office was about 2 blocks from court. I laughed at her and simply told her to have her assistant do whatever she wanted. I then left to go to clerk's office to take the hold off. She had beat me to the office (I moved my car out of her garage). By the time I got there she was outside yelling at her assistant, throwing a hissy fit, and papers were flying everywhere. We \"\"settled\"\" the next day. She got nothing other than the things she had already stolen from me. If I wouldn't have known about this loophole my ex would have gotten or cost me through attorney's fees around 40-50K for basically hiring a lawyer. My ex didn't really have any money so I am pretty sure lawyer was getting a percent. Moral of the story: In any contract like this you always want to be the one bringing in the least amount of money. There are no laws that I know of in any country where the person with the least amount on a contract will come out worse (%-wise). Like I said in the US the best case scenario that I know of for joint property is that the court pays out the stakeholder all of their contributions then it splits things 50/50. This is given no formal contract that the court upholds. Don't even get me started with hiring attorneys because I have seen the courts throw out so many property contracts it isn't even funny. One piece of advice on a contract if you do one. Make it open and about percentages. Party A contributes 50K, Party B 10K, Party A will pay this % of mortgage and maintenance and will get this % when home is sold. I have found the more specific things are the more loopholes for getting out of them. There are goofy ass laws everywhere that make no sense. Why would the person first filing get their lawyers paid for??? The court systems in almost all countries can have their comical corners. You will never be able to write a contract that covers everything. If the shower handle breaks, who pays for it? There is just too many one-off things with a house. You are in essence getting in a relationship with this person. I hear others say it is a business transaction. NO. You are living with this person. There is no way to make it purely business. For you to be happy with this outcome both of you must remain somewhat friends and at the very least civil with each other. To add on to the previous point, the biggest risk is this other person's character and state of mind. They are putting in the most money so you don't exactly have a huge money risk. You do have a time and a time-cost risk. Your time or the money you do have in this may be tied up in trying to get your money out or house sold. A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario. Always know your worst case scenario. Yours is this dude is in love with you. When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts. So he systematically destroys your house. Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay \"\"double rent\"\" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario. Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family? Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them? If it were just a co-worker? That is really iffy with me. Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person. So wording can be changed to say \"\"potentially\"\" in front of living with him in my examples.\""
},
{
"docid": "53840",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred. I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title."
},
{
"docid": "390744",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't think you've mentioned which State you're in. Here in Ontario, a person who is financially incapable can have their financial responsibility and authority removed, and assigned to a trustee. The trustee might be a responsible next of kin (as her ex, you would appear unsuitable: that being a potential conflict of interest); otherwise, it can be the Public Guardian and Trustee. It that happens, then the trustee handles the money; and handles/makes any contracts on behalf of (in the name of) the incapable person. The incapable person might have income (e.g. spousal support payments) and money (e.g. bank accounts), which the trustee can document in order to demonstrate credit-worthiness (or at least solvency). For the time being, the kids see it as an adventure, but I suspect, it will get old very fast. I hope you have a counsellor to talk with about your personal relationships (I've had or tried several and at least one has been extraordinarily helpful). You're not actually expressing a worry about the children being abused or neglected. :/ Is your motive (for asking) that you want her to have a place, so that the children will like it (being there) better? As long as your kids see it as an adventure, perhaps you can be happy for them. Perhaps (I don't know: depending on the people) too it's a good (or at least a better) thing that they are visiting with friends and relatives; and, a better conversational topic with those people might be how they show your children a good time (instead of your ex's money). One possible way I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this. Perhaps (I don't know) there is some way to do that, if you have your ex's cooperation and a lawyer (and perhaps a judge). You haven't said what portions of your payments are for Child support, versus Spousal support (nor, who has custody, etc). If a large part of the support is for the children, then perhaps the children can rent the place. (/wild idea) Note that, in Ontario, there are two trusteeship decisions to make: 1) financial; and 2) personal care, which includes housing and medical. Someone can retain their own 'self-care' authority even if they're judged financially incapable (or vice versa if there's a personal-care or medical decision which they cannot understand). The technical language is, \"\"Mentally Incapable of Managing Property\"\" This term applies to a person who is unable to understand information that is relevant to making a decision or is unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision about his or her property. Processes for certifying an individual as being mentally incapable of managing property are prescribed in the SDA (Substitute Decisions Act), and in the Mental Health Act.\"\" The Mental Heath Act is for medical emergencies (only); but Ontario has a Substitute Decisions Act as well. An intent of the law is to protect vulnerable people. People may also acquire and/or name their own trustee and/or guardian voluntarily: via a power of attorney, a living will, etc. I don't know: how about offering the landlord a year's rent in advance, or in trust? I guess that 1) a court order can determine/override/guarantee the way in which the child support payments are directed 2) it's easier to get that order/agreement if you and your ex cooperate 3) there are housing specialists in your neighborhood: They can buy housing instead of renting it. Or be given (gifted) housing to live in.\""
},
{
"docid": "316794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Consider buying a legal \"\"mother daughter\"\" property, rent out the top part, and live in the \"\"mother\"\" component.\""
},
{
"docid": "485776",
"title": "",
"text": "I've seen agism go the other way on my job. A Generation X'er Accounts Payable Clerk in my department was promoted to an Accounts Payable Supervisory role simply because she has kids and my Baby Boomer boss sympathized with her on a personal level. The punchline is this woman doesn't understand accounting on a fundamental level (she has some junior college education, no degree). I (Generation Y) on the other hand had to train up my Baby Boomer boss in our industry over the course of a year. Attempt to teach him how to use our ERP system (he refuses to learn how to use our accounting system and he's the CFO, big red flag, we're going on year 2 now), cover for him when he make bone-headed Accounting 101 mistakes, and be the defacto department manager (I'm the Senior Accountant) because his Accounts Payable supervisor doesn't know how to debit and credit accounts correctly. The buck should stop with her when it comes to Accounts Payable transactions but she's too incompetent to handle the responsibility. So now my boss is looking hire a new staff to the department and I'm gunning for a Manager's title (I do the managing already I just want the official title and pay raise). In addition I would like to have an official direct report, instead of all this unofficial direct reporting going on. I found out last week that I'm not up for consideration, but the girl that has NO COLLEGE DEGREE who was in my position before me, but left (knew someone who got her a better job) is on the short list for the position. Of course she's a Generation X'er. I'm more experienced technically than she is, I have less years of experience but my skill set is larger, I'm much better educated, and I bring database administration and programming to the table in addition to Accounting (Accounting ERP softwares are essentially databases). I even fixed the tax mess she left the department on the way out. I suspect the reason why I wasn't up for consideration is because I stand out. I'm young (28, look young), gym fit (coworkers are all overweight), and no kids (that seems to REALLY single me out). Everyone else never learned what a condom was and had children around 16-19 years of age. So instead of the workplace becoming a meritocracy, it's a game of who can put themselves in bad situations and garner sympathy for pay raises and promotions they don't deserve."
},
{
"docid": "46218",
"title": "",
"text": "From Illinois. We have been racing to the bottom for years thanks to Chicago corruption and cronyism. Hell, our Attorney General is the daughter of Michael Madigan. He is in charge in Chicago and in the Illinois Legislature. She has not prosecuted one politician in 8 years for corruption. (Two of our former governors were sent prison for corruption by FEDERAL prosecutors.) She knows where the corruption is, but can't arrest Daddy. Funny thing. She was going to announce her candidacy for a Governor. She thought her Dad would step down from his position so she could run. He refused. Yes, I know he is her step-father, but she goes by his name and calls him Dad. She had to trash your election plans. Mickey doesn't care about anyone, but himself."
},
{
"docid": "173878",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Roth is currently not an option, unless you can manage to document income. At 6, this would be difficult but not impossible. My daughter was babysitting at 10, that's when we started her Roth. The 529 is the only option listed that offers the protection of not permitting an 18 year old to \"\"blow the money.\"\" But only if you maintain ownership with the child as beneficiary. The downside of the 529 is the limited investment options, extra layer of fees, and the potential to pay tax if the money is withdrawn without child going to college. As you noted, since it's his money already, you should not be the owner of the account. That would be stealing. The regular account, a UGMA, is his money, but you have to act as custodian. A minor can't trade his own stock account. In that account, you can easily manage it to take advantage of the kiddie tax structure. The first $1000 of realized gains go untaxed, the next $1000 is at his rate, 10%. Above this, is taxed at your rate, with the chance for long tern capital gains at a 15% rate. When he actually has income, you can deposit the lesser of up to the full income or $5500 into a Roth. This was how we shifted this kind of gift money to my daughter's Roth IRA. $2000 income from sitting permitted her to deposit $2000 in funds to the Roth. The income must be documented, but the dollars don't actually need to be the exact dollars earned. This money grows tax free and the deposits may be withdrawn without penalty. The gains are tax free if taken after age 59-1/2. Please comment if you'd like me to expand on any piece of this answer.\""
},
{
"docid": "298547",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for \"\"building maintenance\"\". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a \"\"condo\"\" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance \"\"from the walls out\"\", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you. With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right.\""
},
{
"docid": "65835",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"\"no house\"\" number becomes .024N. The \"\"with house\"\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"\"with house\"\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.\""
},
{
"docid": "204479",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're making big money at 18, you should be saving every penny you can in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. (If your employer offers it, see if you can do a Roth 401(k), as odds are good you'll be in a higher tax bracket at retirement than you are now and you will benefit from the Roth structure. Otherwise, use a regular 401(k). IRAs are also an option, but you can put more money into a 401(k) than you can into an IRA.) If you do this for a decade or two while you're young, you'll be very well set on the road to retirement. Moreover, since you think \"\"I've got the money, why not?\"\" this will actually keep the money from you so you can do a better job of avoiding that question. Your next concern will be post-tax money. You're going to be splitting this between three basic sorts of places: just plain spending it, saving/investing it in bank accounts and stock markets, or purchasing some other form of capital which will save you money or provide you with some useful capability that's worth money (e.g. owning a condo/house will help you save on rent - and you don't have to pay income taxes on that savings!) 18 is generally a little young to be setting down and buying a house, though, so you should probably look at saving money for a while instead. Open an account at Vanguard or a similar institution and buy some simple index funds. (The index funds have lower turnover, which is probably better for your unsheltered accounts, and you don't need to spend a bunch of money on mutual fund expense ratios, or spend a lot of time making a second career out of stock-picking). If you save a lot of your money for retirement now, you won't have to save as much later, and will have more income to spend on a house, so it'll all work out. Whatever you do, you shouldn't blow a bunch of money on a really fancy new car. You might consider a pretty-nice slightly-used car, but the first year of car ownership is distressingly close to just throwing your money away, and fancy cars only make it that much worse. You should also try to have some fun and interesting experiences while you're still young. It's okay to spend some money on them. Don't waste money flying first-class or spend tooo much money dining out, but fun/interesting/different experiences will serve you well throughout your life. (By contrast, routine luxury may not be worth it.)\""
},
{
"docid": "580292",
"title": "",
"text": "No. This logic is dangerous. The apples to apples comparison between renting and buying should be between similar living arrangements. One can't (legitimately) compare living in a 600 sq ft studio to a 3500 sq ft house. With the proposal you offer, one should get the largest mortgage they qualify for, but that can result in a house far too big for their needs. Borrowing to buy just what you need makes sense. Borrowing to buy a house with rooms you may never visit, not a great idea. By the way, do the numbers. The 30 year rate is 4%. You'd need a $250,000 mortgage to get $10,000 in interest the first year, that's a $312,000 house given an 80% loan. On a median income, do you think it makes sense to buy a house twice the US median? Last, a portion of the tax savings is 'lost' to the fact that you have a standard deduction of nearly $6,000 in 2012. So that huge mortgage gets you an extra $4000 in write-off, and $600 back in taxes. Don't ever let the Tax Tail wag the Investing Dog, or in this case the House Dog. Edit - the investment return on real estate is a hot topic. I think it's fair to say that long term one must include the rental value of the house in calculating returns. In the case of buying of way-too-big house, you are not getting the return, it's the same as renting a four bedroom, but leaving three empty. If I can go on a bit - I own a rental, it's worth $200K and after condo fee and property tax, I get $10K/yr. A 5% return, plus whatever appreciation. Now, if I lived there, I'd correctly claim that part of my return is the rental value, the rent I don't pay elsewhere, so the return to me is the potential growth as well as saved rent. But if the condo rents for $1200, and I'd otherwise live in a $600 apartment with less space, the return to me is lost. In my personal case, in fact, I bought a too big house. Not too big for our paycheck, the cost and therefore the mortgage were well below what the bank qualified us for. Too big for the need. I paid for two rooms we really don't use."
},
{
"docid": "286809",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Fitting a description? Stop it. That's a gut feeling you have no evidence of. Let's talk numbers. She took home $76 a day from Popeyes without taxes. She currently only has one job, so let's operate on that. She takes home $313 after taxes a week coming to $1278 per month. She has two sons. Let's say she has a two bedroom apartment. The medium price for that in Missouri is $883. The article mentioned her son's were two bus rides away. She can't drive because she can't afford insurance. A monthly bus pass for one person in Kansas City is $50. After Taxes, Rent, and transportation she has $345. According to USDA, her two sons would need $348 for a month \"\"thrifty\"\" (lowest income) level food budget because they're 14 and 15. She's already broke after Food, Rent, and Transportation. We haven't discussed utility or phone bills. Her children's transportation,Internet service, Clothing,Heat, or School supplies. Are their larger issues at play that allow this to happen? Absolutely. However, the minimum wage used to keep a family of three out of poverty. She's the head of a family of three and she's homeless. Her spending habits could've been better when she had two jobs. However, we don't know those, Her debt, the percentage of her money that goes to health care or any ailments her children might have, but we do know she suffers from high blood pressure. Which the average black patient spends $887 a year on hypertension medication. You're also completely disregarding that poor people can't do things in Bulk. It's more sensible to buy something that cost 0.15 per unit as opposed to 0.25 per unit. However, if you can't afford the bulk item, you're stuck buying the one with less value. Her house was condemned. She had to move. Signing a lease usually requires The First Month, Last month, and security deposit. If we're operating on the median rent, we're asking her to come up with close to 2700 dollars in a day. Do I think we should have a nation $15.00 Minimum wage? no. Do I think minimum wage should be based on average cost of living and median housing in states/large cities? Yes. Sources: https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/usda_food_plans_cost_of_food/CostofFoodJul2014.pdf https://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant-handle-a-500-surprise-bill/ http://piperreport.com/blog/2013/05/13/health-care-spending-hypertension-cost-high-blood-pressure/ http://store.kcata.org/31daypass.php /u/philosoraptor1000 it's not just personal responsibility. The cost of living has skyrocketed. The minimum wage hasn't. Your sarcasm is trash too. /u/thewaywardsaint This sub has become a joke because users like you spew trash, condescending, opinions instead of voicing your opinion using facts, concepts and numbers.\""
},
{
"docid": "284578",
"title": "",
"text": "Of course not. But you walked into this with your eyes open, did you not? Did you think it was going to be 20 min a week or did you know what you were agreeing to? You are asking to jump your price 300% a day into the work. Your friends are in a tight spot already, there is a time crunch until these tests, and her passing or not has real consequences for her. If it were me it would seem clear you lowballed me to get me to say yes then are leveraging that to a massive price hike assuming I won't want to change tutors once you've started. If we were friends we wouldn't be after this. Honestly I think your best option is to go to them and apologize. Say you did not understand the commitment you were making and you do not think you are the right person to tutor their daughter. Offer to continue working with her until they find a proper tutor. If they offer more money maybe you can discuss it but don't you bring it up. They may. I'm not sure about in Europe but in the USA even $10/hr is way below average for a private tutor. That's more like prices for a group test prep course. You definitely lowballed yourself on price and the rate you are thinking is probably a reasonable if not discounted one still. If this weren't involving friends you could be more firm on needing to push up the price because if they walk away angry it's just a lost customer. But doing business with friends is always messier. I could be wrong here, but are you maybe closer to the daughter's age? Are these family friends more accurately your parent's friends? If I'm off on that my advise above stands. If I'm right, think about how your actions will affect the friendship between your parents and this family. Might want to talk with them about it first."
},
{
"docid": "326305",
"title": "",
"text": "My daughter is two, and she has a piggy bank that regularly dines on my pocket change. When that bank is worth $100 or so I will make it a regular high yield savings account. Then I will either setup a regular $10/month transfer into it, or something depending on what we can afford. My plan is then to offer my kid an allowance when she can understand the concept of money. My clever idea is I will offer her a savings plan with the Bank of Daddy. If she lets me keep her allowance for the week, I will give her double the amount plus a percentage the next week. If she does it she will soon see the magic of saving money and how banks pay your for the privilege. I don't know when I will give her access to the savings account with actual cash. I will show it to her, and review it with her so she can track her money, but I need to know that she has some restraint before I open the gates to her."
},
{
"docid": "475412",
"title": "",
"text": "Gift taxes kick in at around $13K per giver per recipient per year. That means that a straight up gift of $200K (as cash or a house) will incur a tax. It is possible, however, that if the father has a spouse, he and the spouse could each give the mother and each child the full gift limit, for a total of about $78K per year, and that money could be used by all 3 of them to buy the house jointly, over a couple of years. I think the children would have to be on the title, since part of the gift money would be theirs (and one is an adult). As far as lending the money, my in-laws are our mortgage lenders, and when we structured the loan, it had to be at a market rate (which could be the lowest advertised rate we found for a fixed-rate mortgage, independent of what we might actually qualify for) or we could not deduct interest payments. Forgiving the loan could also be considered a gift, so they would need to keep an audit trail showing that payments were made, and her father would need to declare the interest income on his taxes. If he bought the house as a second home and let her and her children live there rent-free, it might work, but I'm not sure. It would, in that case, be an asset of his estate when he dies. I don't know anything about structuring it as a trust. Free rent could conceivably also be construed as a gift, subject to the limits stated above. Disclaimer: Not a tax professional."
},
{
"docid": "510575",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a house/condo and rent it out now. On the other hand, I think finishing your basement and then renting it out is an excellent idea. The ROR is excellent as long as you can deal with the \"\"strangers\"\" in the basement, have the extra driveway space and negative association with renting out your basement. HTH\""
},
{
"docid": "178717",
"title": "",
"text": "You are not perfectly clear, but I will assume that your ex-girlfriend owns the car and that her name is the only one on the title. The fact that you paid off the loan and repaired the car is completely irrelevant. From a court's point of view you gifted the car to your girlfriend. If you are listed on the title, then your best move is to steal the car and hide it so she can't steal it back. Note that you are not actually stealing it if you are listed on the title since you own the car. (Try to steal it when it is parked in some public place. Avoid going onto her property.) Wait until she gets hungry, then offer her $500 if she agrees to remove her name from the title. By the way, after you steal the car, send a certified letter to her informing her that you have possession of the car. This is so that she has no grounds to report it stolen. Check with the police periodically to make sure she doesn't report it stolen anyway. If she reports it stolen AFTER you have notified her that you have possession, then it is a crime (making a false report)."
},
{
"docid": "267592",
"title": "",
"text": "In this case can the title of the home still be held by both? Yes, it is possible to have additional people on title that are not on the mortgage. Would the lender (bank) have any reservations about this since a party not on the mortgage has ownership of the property? Possibly, but there is a very simple way to avoid this. Clayton could simply purchase the home himself, and add Emma to the title after closing by recording a quitclaim deed. The lender can't stop that, and from their point of view it's actually better, since they have two people to go after in the case of default. (But despite it being better they often make it difficult to purchase Tip, when you have an attorney draft the quitclaim document, have them draft the reverse document too. (Emma relinquishing the property back to Clayton.) There is usually no extra charge for this and then you have it if you need it. For example, you may need to file the reverse forms if you want to refinance. As a side note, I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's and Pete B.'s in recommending that Clayton and Emma do not do this. Once they are married the property will either be automatically jointly owned, or a spouse can be added to the title easily, and until they are married there are no pros but many cons to doing this. Reasons not to do it: As a side note, in a comment it was proposed: ...suppose Clayton loves Emma so much that he wants her name to be on the house... I understand the desire to do this from an emotional point of view, but realize this does not make sense from a financial point of view."
},
{
"docid": "339955",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know of any financial account that offers that kind of protection. I'm going to echo @Brick and say that if you need that level of restrictions on the money, you should talk to a lawyer. Your only option may be to setup a trust. If you are willing to go with a lower level of restrictions on the account, a 529 plan could do the job. A 529 Plan is an education savings plan operated by a state or educational institution designed to help families set aside funds for future college costs. It will be in your daughters name, and has the benefit of being tax advantaged, unless its used for non educational expenses. Since your daughter is a minor, there would have to be a custodian for the account that manages it on her behalf. The penalty for using it for non educational expenses might suffice to keep the custodian from draining the account, and I believe the custodian has a fiduciary duty to the account holder, which would open them up to lawsuits if the custodian did act in a way that was detrimental to your child."
}
] |
6122 | Better to rent condo to daughter or put her on title? | [
{
"docid": "169824",
"title": "",
"text": "@Pete B.'s answer is good, but there's an important note to consider for tax purposes. It's too large for a comment, so I'm adding it as an answer. And that is: you cannot claim the property as a rental property under certain conditions. This affects things like claiming mortgage interest (which you don't have), and depreciation in value (which a rental is allowed). See IRS topic 415 for details, but I've included an important excerpt below with emphasis added: If you rent a dwelling unit to others that you also use as a residence, limitations may apply to the rental expenses you can deduct. You're considered to use a dwelling unit as a residence if you use it for personal purposes during the tax year for more than the greater of: ... A day of personal use of a dwelling unit is any day that it's used by: Talk to a tax accountant to better understand the ramifications of this, but it's worth noting that you can't just rent it to her for a paltry sum and be able to take tax advantages from this arrangement."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "84732",
"title": "",
"text": "Unlike others who have answered the question - I have done this. Here is my experience - your mileage and friendship may vary: I bought a condo years ago with a longtime childhood friend. We did it for all the reasons you mentioned - sick of renting and not building equity, were both young, single professionals who had the money. The market crashed we have both since married and moved on to own other properties with our spouses. Now we rent out the condo as selling in the current market is not doable.. It's not an ideal situation but that is because of the real estate market - not who I bought with. You need to discuss very openly all of the following scenarios, as well as others I can't think of right now I am sure: If you aren't both 100% in sync with these questions then do not do it. I never understand why some people would buy with a girlfriend/boyfriend but not a good personal friend. You're more likely to have a falling out with your significant other then a long time close friend. My advice, have honest, open conversations, about all possible scenarios. If you feel necessary put somethings down into some sort of legal agreement - with us it was not, and still isn't necessary."
},
{
"docid": "320315",
"title": "",
"text": "Does the full time PHD student extend to 70-80 hours/week or more? If not, can you pick up an extra job to aid with living expenses? Also, whose name is the debt in? Is your wife paying to avoid the black mark on her credit record or her mother's? Basically what it looks like to me is that you guys currently have a car you cannot afford and that her mother doesn't seem to be able to afford either, at a ridiculous interest rate on top. Refinancing might be an option but at a payoff amount of 12k you're upside down even when it comes to the KBB retail value. I'm somewhat allergic to financing a deprecating asset (especially at a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that she's already paid them around $18k if you are indeed three years into the loan). What I would be tempted to do in your situation is to attempt to negotiate a lower payoff to see if they're willing to settle for less and give you clean title to the car - worst thing they can say is no, but you might be able to get the car for a little less than the $12k, then preferably use your emergency money to pay off the car and put it up for sale. Use some of the money to buy her a cheaper car for, say, $4k-$5k (or less if you're mechanically inclined) and put the rest back into your emergency fund. The problem I see with refinancing it would be that it looks like you're underwater from a balance vs retail value perspective so you might have a problem finding someone to refinance it with you throwing some of your emergency money at it in the first place."
},
{
"docid": "460067",
"title": "",
"text": "Just finished moving my Mother In Law from her 1500+ sq ft condo into 400 sq ft assisted living. We had grandiose ideas of selling all the valuable antiques and furniture to help her financially. Turns out no one wants it, for the most part. Made a few hundred dollars for many hours of works from half a dozen people. Ended up giving 80% of it to Goodwill/Salavation Army. Even her $6000 fur coat was only worth $200. Too much supply, not enough demand. All I know is that my wife and I are now going through our stuff and getting it out of our lives so our son doesn't have to deal with it (in the *far* future, hopefully!)"
},
{
"docid": "403842",
"title": "",
"text": "Your mother has a problem that is typical for a woman with children. She is trying to help her children have a good life, by sacrificing to get them to a point where they can live comfortably on their own. Though she has a difficult situation now, much of the problems come from a very few choices by her and her children, and her situation can be fixed. Let me point out a few of the reasons why she has come to this point: My mother is a single mom... she is turning 50 this summer... she has about $60k in school loans from the college I attended... she has payments of $500/month ($10k) to my sisters college... she lives on her own in a 2 bedroom apartment... Mother's current 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $3131, 71%, too high, goal $2200) Lifestyle (total $150, low, she should have $500-900 to live her life) Financial (total $1350, 31%) Some observations and suggestions: Even though the $1625 rents seems high, your mom might enjoy her apartment and consider part of her rent ($300) a lifestyle choice (spending money for time), and the higher rent may make sense. But the rent is high for her income. Your mom should be spending more on food, and budget $200/month. Your mom should be saving money for investments and retirement. She should be putting 10% into savings ($440), plus any IRA/401K pretax savings. Your sister should be paying for her own college. She should take her own student loans, so that her mother can save for retirement. And since she only has $10K left, an alternative would be that you could loan her the money, and she could repay you when she graduates (you have money, as you loaned your mother $8K). You should be repaying the $500/month on the $60K student loan your mother took to help you get through college. You have benefited from the education, and the increased opportunity the college education has given you. Now is the time to accept responsibility and pay your debts. You could at least agree to split the expense with her, and were you paying even $300/month (leaving $200 for her), that would still fix her budget. Your mom should get a car that is paid for and reduce her transportation expenses, until the $350/month debt is resolved. She should resolve to spend no more than $300/month for a car, and with $100/month for insurance be under 10% for her vehicle. Since your mother lives in the US (NJ) she could avoid the $350/month debt payment though BK. But since there are other solutions she could exercise to resolve her problems, this is probably not needed. You mom could consider sharing her apartment to share expenses. Paying $1625 for an apartment for one person seems extravagant. She might enjoy sharing her apartment with a room-mate. That is about it. Once her children take responsibility for their lives, your mom will have a manageable budget, and less stress in her life. Mother's revised 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $2721, 62%, high, need to reduce by $500) Lifestyle (total $450, 10%, low) Financial (total $990, 23%) While you and your sister have these changes, Summary of changes: Some rent is lifestyle, reduced car loan by $200, sister pays her college $500, you pay your college $300, mom saves 10% of her income. Once your sister graduates and starts to repay you for your help with her college, you can take over paying the remainder of your loans, saving your mom an additional $200/month."
},
{
"docid": "597376",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you say \"\"apartment\"\" I take it you mean \"\"condo\"\", as you're talking about buying. Right or no? A condo is generally cheaper to buy than a house of equal size and coondition, but they you have to pay condo fees forever. So you're paying less up front but you have an ongoing expense. With a condo, the condo association normally does exterior maintenance, so it's not your problem. Find out exactly what's your responsibility and what's theirs, but you typically don't have to worry about maintaining the parking areas, you have less if any grass to mow, you don't have to deal with roof or outside walls, etc. Of course you're paying for all this through your condo fees. There are two advantages to getting a shorter term loan: Because you owe the money for less time, each percentage point of interest is less total cash. 1% time 15 years versus 1% times 30 years or whatever. Also, you can usually get a lower rate on a shorter term loan because there's less risk to the bank: they only have to worry about where interest rates might go for 15 years instead of 30 years. So even if you know that you will sell the house and pay off the loan in 10 years, you'll usually pay less with a 15 year loan than a 30 year loan because of the lower rate. The catch to a shorter-term loan is that the monthly payments are higher. If you can't afford the monthly payment, then any advantages are just hypothetical. Typically if you have less than a 20% down payment, you have to pay mortgage insurance. So if you can manage 20% down, do it, it saves you a bundle. Every extra dollar of down payment is that much less that you're paying in interest. You want to keep an emergency fund so I wouldn't put every spare dime I had into a down payment if I could avoid it, but you want the biggest down payment you can manage. (Well, one can debate whether its better to use spare cash to invest in the stock market or some other investment rather than paying down the mortgage. Whole different question.) \"\"I dont think its a good idea to make any principal payments as I would probably loose them when I would want to sell the house and pay off the mortgage\"\" I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Any extra principle payments that you make, you'll get back when you sell the house. I mean, suppose you buy a house for $100,000, over the time you own it you pay $30,000 in principle (between regular payments and any extra payments), and then you sell it for $120,000. So out of that $120,000 you'll have to pay off the $70,000 balance remaining on the loan, leaving $50,000 to pay other expenses and whatever is left goes in your pocket. Scenario 2, you buy the house for $100,000, pay $40,000 in principle, and sell for $120,000. So now you subtract $60,000 from the $120,000 leaving $60,000. You put in an extra $10,000, but you get it back when you sell. Whether you make or lose money on the house, whatever extra principle you put in, you'll get back at sale time in terms of less money that will have to go to pay the remaining principle on the mortgage.\""
},
{
"docid": "557234",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Hey Citypig88 (I like that name by the way). In your assertion that \"\"regular people\"\" didn't lose - that isn't true. I have WAY too many examples - so I'll just provide two. [This article gives some insight](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html) - there are TONS more if you google it.. I'm getting tired of posting stuff about this. From the article: >Take John Robbins. When the retired Army officer heard Trump, in a music-filled tent, talk of putting up the tallest building in Tampa, Fla., he wanted in—“because of the Trump name.” But Robbins lost half his $150,000 down payment when the condo project went bankrupt and was “floored” to learn that Trump had merely licensed his gold-plated moniker: “ And >Hamed Hoshyarsar invested $54,000 in a condo at the Trump Ocean Resort Baja for one reason: he was a fan of The Apprentice. He lost every dime when the project was never built. These investors could be anti-everyone's grandmother or grandfather. They are just regular people who believed in the Trump brand and put down payments on condos...and got ripped off. Cracked wrote an funny/blood boiling article which outlines what a scumbag this guy is. [Enjoy](http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-stories-about-donald-trump-you-wont-believe-are-true/)\""
},
{
"docid": "390744",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't think you've mentioned which State you're in. Here in Ontario, a person who is financially incapable can have their financial responsibility and authority removed, and assigned to a trustee. The trustee might be a responsible next of kin (as her ex, you would appear unsuitable: that being a potential conflict of interest); otherwise, it can be the Public Guardian and Trustee. It that happens, then the trustee handles the money; and handles/makes any contracts on behalf of (in the name of) the incapable person. The incapable person might have income (e.g. spousal support payments) and money (e.g. bank accounts), which the trustee can document in order to demonstrate credit-worthiness (or at least solvency). For the time being, the kids see it as an adventure, but I suspect, it will get old very fast. I hope you have a counsellor to talk with about your personal relationships (I've had or tried several and at least one has been extraordinarily helpful). You're not actually expressing a worry about the children being abused or neglected. :/ Is your motive (for asking) that you want her to have a place, so that the children will like it (being there) better? As long as your kids see it as an adventure, perhaps you can be happy for them. Perhaps (I don't know: depending on the people) too it's a good (or at least a better) thing that they are visiting with friends and relatives; and, a better conversational topic with those people might be how they show your children a good time (instead of your ex's money). One possible way I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this. Perhaps (I don't know) there is some way to do that, if you have your ex's cooperation and a lawyer (and perhaps a judge). You haven't said what portions of your payments are for Child support, versus Spousal support (nor, who has custody, etc). If a large part of the support is for the children, then perhaps the children can rent the place. (/wild idea) Note that, in Ontario, there are two trusteeship decisions to make: 1) financial; and 2) personal care, which includes housing and medical. Someone can retain their own 'self-care' authority even if they're judged financially incapable (or vice versa if there's a personal-care or medical decision which they cannot understand). The technical language is, \"\"Mentally Incapable of Managing Property\"\" This term applies to a person who is unable to understand information that is relevant to making a decision or is unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or lack of decision about his or her property. Processes for certifying an individual as being mentally incapable of managing property are prescribed in the SDA (Substitute Decisions Act), and in the Mental Health Act.\"\" The Mental Heath Act is for medical emergencies (only); but Ontario has a Substitute Decisions Act as well. An intent of the law is to protect vulnerable people. People may also acquire and/or name their own trustee and/or guardian voluntarily: via a power of attorney, a living will, etc. I don't know: how about offering the landlord a year's rent in advance, or in trust? I guess that 1) a court order can determine/override/guarantee the way in which the child support payments are directed 2) it's easier to get that order/agreement if you and your ex cooperate 3) there are housing specialists in your neighborhood: They can buy housing instead of renting it. Or be given (gifted) housing to live in.\""
},
{
"docid": "316794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Consider buying a legal \"\"mother daughter\"\" property, rent out the top part, and live in the \"\"mother\"\" component.\""
},
{
"docid": "298547",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for \"\"building maintenance\"\". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a \"\"condo\"\" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance \"\"from the walls out\"\", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you. With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right.\""
},
{
"docid": "177550",
"title": "",
"text": "See what your current card requires for additional cards. When my daughter turned 16, and I ordered a card for her, I realized the issuer didn't ask for her social security number, only a name and address. That's when I also ordered a card with my pseudonym. Which I believe is what you're looking for. I realize that you prefer no name at all, but any online site where you place an order will require you to fill in that name field ."
},
{
"docid": "424125",
"title": "",
"text": "You should have her sell it to you for the amount of the outstanding loan. You take out a loan in your name for the amount (or at least, the amount you have to come up with). You then transfer the title from her to you, just as you would if you were buying the car from someone else. While the title is in her name, she has ownership. This isn't a technicality, this is the explicit legal situation you two have agreed to."
},
{
"docid": "62694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'd probably say \"\"buy\"\" for most situations. Unless you have a long-term lease, you're going to be saddled with elastic/rising rents if the market tightens up, while with a purchase you usually have fixed expenses (with the exception of property taxes/condo fees) and you are gaining equity. As I've gotten older, the prospect of moving is more and more daunting. The prospect of being essentially kicked out of my home when the landlord decides to sell the property or raise the rent is a turn-off to me.\""
},
{
"docid": "558251",
"title": "",
"text": "The other thing that you may or may not be considering is the fact that when she moves or otherwise ceases to live in that condo, you could then rent the unit out to others at the inflation adjusted rent price for the area. You could continue to build equity in the property for a fraction of the cost, and it would continue to be a tax write-off once your mother is not living there. While you have more maintenance and repairs cost when renters live there (typically, anyway), if inflation continues to carry on at about 4-5%, then you would be potentially renting the unit out at between $2,500 and $2,850 by the 10th year from now. Obviously, there are other considerations to be made as well, but those are some additional factors that don't seem to have been addressed in any of the above comments."
},
{
"docid": "53840",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred. I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title."
},
{
"docid": "423272",
"title": "",
"text": "The phrase doesn't mean anything specifically. Your SO could start paying the payments, but the title and lien would remain in your name. If you wanted to change the title or lien to be in her name, you would have to sell the car to her (sales tax would be involved but the process would be relatively painless). You could sell her the car for a pretty cheap price, but not $1. (unless the depreciated value of the car was less than the rest of the loan amount). You could draft up an agreement that if you break up or something, she agrees to buy the car from you for $x dollars minus all the payments she has made on the car."
},
{
"docid": "65835",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"\"no house\"\" number becomes .024N. The \"\"with house\"\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"\"with house\"\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.\""
},
{
"docid": "577658",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The bottom line is that you can decide whatever you want to do. It is good of you to get everything in writing. What happens if she decides to move to a different city? What happens if she also wants to be bought out? It should also include contingencies for your husband and yourself. God forbid anything negative happens, but what happens if you two get divorced? Does your husband want to be an agreement with your sister if you pass away? There does not seem to be any math to do in this case. While she is paying the lion's share of the payment, she is also receiving the benefit of having a place to live. It is unlikely that she can rent an equivalent place for anything close to 1400/month. I would estimate it would be at least 1800/month to rent an equivalent property. So she put no money down, and she is paying below market \"\"rent\"\" to live somewhere. Many people would be happy to have $400/month off and handle their own repairs (let alone you still kicking in half). Now all that said, if you want to give her some equity based upon generosity or the desire to give her some dignity, then you are free to do so. Perhaps 10%?\""
},
{
"docid": "485776",
"title": "",
"text": "I've seen agism go the other way on my job. A Generation X'er Accounts Payable Clerk in my department was promoted to an Accounts Payable Supervisory role simply because she has kids and my Baby Boomer boss sympathized with her on a personal level. The punchline is this woman doesn't understand accounting on a fundamental level (she has some junior college education, no degree). I (Generation Y) on the other hand had to train up my Baby Boomer boss in our industry over the course of a year. Attempt to teach him how to use our ERP system (he refuses to learn how to use our accounting system and he's the CFO, big red flag, we're going on year 2 now), cover for him when he make bone-headed Accounting 101 mistakes, and be the defacto department manager (I'm the Senior Accountant) because his Accounts Payable supervisor doesn't know how to debit and credit accounts correctly. The buck should stop with her when it comes to Accounts Payable transactions but she's too incompetent to handle the responsibility. So now my boss is looking hire a new staff to the department and I'm gunning for a Manager's title (I do the managing already I just want the official title and pay raise). In addition I would like to have an official direct report, instead of all this unofficial direct reporting going on. I found out last week that I'm not up for consideration, but the girl that has NO COLLEGE DEGREE who was in my position before me, but left (knew someone who got her a better job) is on the short list for the position. Of course she's a Generation X'er. I'm more experienced technically than she is, I have less years of experience but my skill set is larger, I'm much better educated, and I bring database administration and programming to the table in addition to Accounting (Accounting ERP softwares are essentially databases). I even fixed the tax mess she left the department on the way out. I suspect the reason why I wasn't up for consideration is because I stand out. I'm young (28, look young), gym fit (coworkers are all overweight), and no kids (that seems to REALLY single me out). Everyone else never learned what a condom was and had children around 16-19 years of age. So instead of the workplace becoming a meritocracy, it's a game of who can put themselves in bad situations and garner sympathy for pay raises and promotions they don't deserve."
},
{
"docid": "227364",
"title": "",
"text": "The bucket concept. What ever works. Some people literally use envelopes, putting cash into each category for there upcoming bills. I prefer not to mix my long term investments. My daughter's college fund is in a series of separate accounts from our retirement money. I won't criticize your CFP's comments, because advice is individual, her approach probably works well for her clients. The important thing isn't the focus on the words, but the end result. Spend less than you earn, save for each of your goals. I removed any IRA/US reference and comment on bucket concept."
}
] |
6122 | Better to rent condo to daughter or put her on title? | [
{
"docid": "44344",
"title": "",
"text": "By placing the property in her name, her share of it would also be considered an asset of hers should she ever be sued. If she gets married and later divorced, depending on if Michigan is a community property state or not (and a lot of other things), her ex might get 50% of her stake in the property."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "551849",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think your question is pretty wise, and the comments indicate that you understand the magnitude of the situation. First off, there could be nothing that your friend could do. Step parent relationships can be strained and this could make it worse, add the age of the girl and grief and he could make this a lot worse then it potentially is. She may spend it all to spite step-dad. Secondly, there is a need to understand by all involved that personal finance is about 75-90% behavior. Very high income people can wind up bankrupt, and lower income people can end up wealthy. The difference between two people's success or failure often boils down to behavior. Thirdly, I think you understand that there needs to be a \"\"why\"\", not only a \"\"what\"\" to do. I think that is the real tricky part. There has to be a teaching component along with an okay this is what you should do. Finding a person will be difficult. First off there is not a lot of money involved. Good financial advisers handle much larger cash positions and this young lady will probably need to spend some of it down. Secondly most FAs are willing to provide a cookie cutter solution to the problem at hand. This will likely leave a bad taste in the daughter's mouth. If it was me, I would encourage two things: Both of those things buy time. If she comes out of this with an education in a career field with a 50-60K starting salary, a nice used car, and no student loans that would be okay. I would venture to say mom would be happy. If she is very savvy, she might be able to come out of this with a down payment on a place of her own; or, if she has education all locked up perhaps purchasing a home for mostly cash. In the interim period a search for a good teaching FA could occur. Finding such a person could also help you and your friend in addition to the daughter. Now my own step-daughter and I have a good financial relationship. There are other areas where our relationship can be strained but as far as finances we relate well. We took Financial Peace University ($100 offered through many local churches) together when she was at the tender age of 16. The story of \"\"Ben and Arthur\"\" really spoke to her and we have had many subsequent conversations on the matter. That may work in this case. A youTube video on part of the lesson.\""
},
{
"docid": "35002",
"title": "",
"text": "15 years ago I bought a beach condo in Miami for $400,000 and two extra parking spaces for $3000 each. Today the condo is worth 600,000 but the rent barely covers mortgage repairs and property taxes. Most of The old people in the building have since died and are now replaced with families with at least two cars and spots are in short supply. I turned down offers of 25,000 for each parking space. I have the spaces rented out for $200 per month no maintenance for an 80% annual return on my purchase price and the value went has gone up over $700%. And no realtors commissions if i decide to sell the spaces."
},
{
"docid": "361836",
"title": "",
"text": "You could conceivably open a few accounts. For example, a bank account and a credit card account. Then the accounts will be older when evaluated for credit when you return. This would look better than opening fresh accounts later. But don't expect a big difference in score. And you'll be stuck with those accounts in the future, otherwise you lose the benefit. I wouldn't worry about maintaining balances now. You can wait until you come back. Occasional purchases may be helpful. What they really want to see is a regular and sustained use of accounts without missing payments or overextending. But if you're not going to be here, you can't really do that. Note that good credit scores are based on seven years of data, preferably a lot of it. Opening a few accounts can't substitute for that, even if you put balances on them. If you're not here, you won't be paying rent or utilities. You won't have a proven payment history on the most common accounts. If money were no object, you could do something like purchase a house or condo that you could rent out, utilities included. That would build up a payment history. But if money were no object, you probably wouldn't be worried about your credit score. It's more practical to just live normally and be sure that you always live within your means so that you don't experience negative credit events. You might think about why you want a good credit score. Is it to borrow a lot of money? You might be able to spend money to achieve that. Is it to save money on future borrowing? If it costs money now, how much will you save total? Opening accounts now that you won't really use until you return is about the only thing that you can do that won't cost you money. Perhaps put a balance on the bank account--at least you'll get that money back some day. Maintaining a balance on the credit cards would cost you money in interest charges, and you don't really benefit from an improved credit score until you use your credit. So the interest fees aren't really buying you anything."
},
{
"docid": "475412",
"title": "",
"text": "Gift taxes kick in at around $13K per giver per recipient per year. That means that a straight up gift of $200K (as cash or a house) will incur a tax. It is possible, however, that if the father has a spouse, he and the spouse could each give the mother and each child the full gift limit, for a total of about $78K per year, and that money could be used by all 3 of them to buy the house jointly, over a couple of years. I think the children would have to be on the title, since part of the gift money would be theirs (and one is an adult). As far as lending the money, my in-laws are our mortgage lenders, and when we structured the loan, it had to be at a market rate (which could be the lowest advertised rate we found for a fixed-rate mortgage, independent of what we might actually qualify for) or we could not deduct interest payments. Forgiving the loan could also be considered a gift, so they would need to keep an audit trail showing that payments were made, and her father would need to declare the interest income on his taxes. If he bought the house as a second home and let her and her children live there rent-free, it might work, but I'm not sure. It would, in that case, be an asset of his estate when he dies. I don't know anything about structuring it as a trust. Free rent could conceivably also be construed as a gift, subject to the limits stated above. Disclaimer: Not a tax professional."
},
{
"docid": "425994",
"title": "",
"text": "Eventually you are going to need some sort of real credit history. It is possible that you will be able to evade this if you never buy a house, or if you pay cash for any house/condo/car/boat/etc that you buy. Even employers check credit history these days. I wouldn't be surprised if some medical professionals such as surgeons check it also. Obviously if you have a mortgage and car loan this doesn't apply, but I'd be curious how you acquired those unless you have substantial income and/or assets. Combine this with the fact that certain things like renting a car essentially require a credit card (because they need to put a hold on more money than they are actually going to take out of your card, so they can take that money if you don't bring the car back), and I think you should have a credit card unless you and your wife are individuals with zero impulse control, which sounds highly improbable. If your concern is the financial liability of the credit line, just keep the credit line low."
},
{
"docid": "204479",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you're making big money at 18, you should be saving every penny you can in tax-advantaged retirement accounts. (If your employer offers it, see if you can do a Roth 401(k), as odds are good you'll be in a higher tax bracket at retirement than you are now and you will benefit from the Roth structure. Otherwise, use a regular 401(k). IRAs are also an option, but you can put more money into a 401(k) than you can into an IRA.) If you do this for a decade or two while you're young, you'll be very well set on the road to retirement. Moreover, since you think \"\"I've got the money, why not?\"\" this will actually keep the money from you so you can do a better job of avoiding that question. Your next concern will be post-tax money. You're going to be splitting this between three basic sorts of places: just plain spending it, saving/investing it in bank accounts and stock markets, or purchasing some other form of capital which will save you money or provide you with some useful capability that's worth money (e.g. owning a condo/house will help you save on rent - and you don't have to pay income taxes on that savings!) 18 is generally a little young to be setting down and buying a house, though, so you should probably look at saving money for a while instead. Open an account at Vanguard or a similar institution and buy some simple index funds. (The index funds have lower turnover, which is probably better for your unsheltered accounts, and you don't need to spend a bunch of money on mutual fund expense ratios, or spend a lot of time making a second career out of stock-picking). If you save a lot of your money for retirement now, you won't have to save as much later, and will have more income to spend on a house, so it'll all work out. Whatever you do, you shouldn't blow a bunch of money on a really fancy new car. You might consider a pretty-nice slightly-used car, but the first year of car ownership is distressingly close to just throwing your money away, and fancy cars only make it that much worse. You should also try to have some fun and interesting experiences while you're still young. It's okay to spend some money on them. Don't waste money flying first-class or spend tooo much money dining out, but fun/interesting/different experiences will serve you well throughout your life. (By contrast, routine luxury may not be worth it.)\""
},
{
"docid": "255414",
"title": "",
"text": "Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility."
},
{
"docid": "510575",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It doesn't make a lot of sense to buy a house/condo and rent it out now. On the other hand, I think finishing your basement and then renting it out is an excellent idea. The ROR is excellent as long as you can deal with the \"\"strangers\"\" in the basement, have the extra driveway space and negative association with renting out your basement. HTH\""
},
{
"docid": "267592",
"title": "",
"text": "In this case can the title of the home still be held by both? Yes, it is possible to have additional people on title that are not on the mortgage. Would the lender (bank) have any reservations about this since a party not on the mortgage has ownership of the property? Possibly, but there is a very simple way to avoid this. Clayton could simply purchase the home himself, and add Emma to the title after closing by recording a quitclaim deed. The lender can't stop that, and from their point of view it's actually better, since they have two people to go after in the case of default. (But despite it being better they often make it difficult to purchase Tip, when you have an attorney draft the quitclaim document, have them draft the reverse document too. (Emma relinquishing the property back to Clayton.) There is usually no extra charge for this and then you have it if you need it. For example, you may need to file the reverse forms if you want to refinance. As a side note, I agree with Grade 'Eh' Bacon's and Pete B.'s in recommending that Clayton and Emma do not do this. Once they are married the property will either be automatically jointly owned, or a spouse can be added to the title easily, and until they are married there are no pros but many cons to doing this. Reasons not to do it: As a side note, in a comment it was proposed: ...suppose Clayton loves Emma so much that he wants her name to be on the house... I understand the desire to do this from an emotional point of view, but realize this does not make sense from a financial point of view."
},
{
"docid": "470596",
"title": "",
"text": "I've found a much better time at the independent toy stores. My daughter is into some unique things at her age. Graphic novels and weird dolls. At 11 toysrus doesn't cut it. It's a shame though, babies r us was a great place for our baby needs when we had kids. In the end it is sad to see a toy store chain go down. Kids need the stuff that toy stores have to offer. Kids are too engrossed in digital media. They need the 3d world that toys give them, and it's really tragic to see where kids are going."
},
{
"docid": "5759",
"title": "",
"text": "At 5%, this means you expect rents to double every 14 years. I bought a condo style apartment 28 years ago, (sold a while back, by the way) and recently saw the going rate for rents has moved up from $525 to $750, after all this time. The rent hasn't increased four fold. If rents appear to be too low compared to the cost of buying the house, people tend to prefer to rent. On the flip side, if the rent can cover a mortgage and then some, there's strong motivation to buy, if not by the renters, then by investors who seek a high return from renting those houses, thereby pushing the price up. The price to rent ratio isn't fixed, it depends in part on interest rates, consumer sentiment, and banks willingness to lend. Similar to stock's P/E, there can be quite a range, but too far in either direction is a sign a correction is due."
},
{
"docid": "233571",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Completely linear? We don't do that. Our daughter has a fixed allowance, and we expect a certain amount of help around the house as being part of the family. We don't make any explicit ties between the two, and we don't seem to have any problems. We bought an eBay lot of Polly Pockets and divided them up into $5 bags. (This is a better deal that what we could get in the store new.) Her allowance isn't enough that she can \"\"buy\"\" one every week. After sensing her frustration we gave her the opportunity to earn some more money by doing extra work. It happened to be cleaning up after our dogs in the back yard, a chore we had neglected for quite a while. She stuck with the job, and truly earned that money. (She'll be six in January.) What's more, it was a good deal for me. It needed to be done, and I didn't really want to do it. :) So, for now this seems like a fair balance. It prevents her from getting the idea that she won't work unless she gets paid, but she also knows that working harder does have its rewards. We still have time to teach her the idea of working smarter. (This isn't a formal study. It's just my experience.)\""
},
{
"docid": "196961",
"title": "",
"text": "Very grey area. You can't pay them to run errands, mow the lawn, etc. I'd suggest that you would have to have self employment income (i.e. your own business) for you to justify the deduction. And then the work itself needs to be applicable to the business. I've commented here and elsewhere that I jumped on this when my daughter at age 12 started to have income from babysitting. I told her that in exchange for her taking the time to keep a notebook, listing the family paying her, the date, and amount paid, I'd make a deposit to a Roth IRA for her. I've approaches taxes each year in a way that would be audit-compliant, i.e. a paper trail that covers any and all deductions, donations, etc. In the real world, the IRS isn't likely to audit someone for that Roth deposit, as there's little for them to recover."
},
{
"docid": "284578",
"title": "",
"text": "Of course not. But you walked into this with your eyes open, did you not? Did you think it was going to be 20 min a week or did you know what you were agreeing to? You are asking to jump your price 300% a day into the work. Your friends are in a tight spot already, there is a time crunch until these tests, and her passing or not has real consequences for her. If it were me it would seem clear you lowballed me to get me to say yes then are leveraging that to a massive price hike assuming I won't want to change tutors once you've started. If we were friends we wouldn't be after this. Honestly I think your best option is to go to them and apologize. Say you did not understand the commitment you were making and you do not think you are the right person to tutor their daughter. Offer to continue working with her until they find a proper tutor. If they offer more money maybe you can discuss it but don't you bring it up. They may. I'm not sure about in Europe but in the USA even $10/hr is way below average for a private tutor. That's more like prices for a group test prep course. You definitely lowballed yourself on price and the rate you are thinking is probably a reasonable if not discounted one still. If this weren't involving friends you could be more firm on needing to push up the price because if they walk away angry it's just a lost customer. But doing business with friends is always messier. I could be wrong here, but are you maybe closer to the daughter's age? Are these family friends more accurately your parent's friends? If I'm off on that my advise above stands. If I'm right, think about how your actions will affect the friendship between your parents and this family. Might want to talk with them about it first."
},
{
"docid": "386720",
"title": "",
"text": "You remind me a lot of myself as I was thinking about marriage. Luckily for me, my wife was much smarter about all this than I was. Hopefully, I can pass along some of her wisdom. Both of us feel very strongly about being financially independent and if possible we both don't want to take money from each other. In marriage, there is no more financial independence. Do not think in those terms. Life can throw so many curve balls that you will regret it. Imagine sitting down with your new bride and running through the math. She is to contribute $X to the family each month and you are to contribute $Y. Then next thing you know, 6 months later, she has cancer and has to undergo expensive and debilitating treatment. There is no way she can contribute her $X anymore. You tell her that is okay and that you understand, but the pressure weighs down on her every day because she feels like she is not meeting your expectations. Or alternatively, everything goes great with your $X, $Y plan. A few years down the road your wife is pregnant, so you revisit the plan, readjust, etc. Everything seems great. When your child is born, however, the baby has a severe physical or mental handicap. You and your wife decide that she will quit her job to raise your beautiful child. But, the whole time, in the back of her mind she can't get out of her head that she is no longer financially independent and not living up to your expectations. These stresses are not what you want in your marriage. Here is what we do in my family. Hopefully, some of this will be helpful to you. Every year my wife and I sit down and determine what our financial goals are for the year. How much do we want to be putting in retirement? How much do we want to give to charity? Do we want to take any family vacations? We set goals together on what we want to achieve with our money. There is no my money or her money, just ours. Doesn't matter where it comes from. At the beginning of every month, we create a budget in a spreadsheet. It has categories like (food, mortgage or rent, transportation, clothing, utilities) and we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. It also has categories for entertainment, retirement, charity, cell phones, internet, and so on. Again, we put down how much we expect to spend on each of those. In the spreadsheet, we also track how much income we expect that month and our totals (income minus expenses). If that value is positive, we determine what to do with the remainder. Maybe we save some for a rainy day or for car repairs. Maybe we treat ourselves to an extra fancy dinner. The point is, every dollar should be accounted for. If she wants to go to dinner with some friends, we put that in the budget. If I want a new video game, we put that in the budget. Once a week, we take all our receipts and tally up where we spent our money. We then see how we are doing on our budget. Maybe we were a little high in one category and lower than expected in another. We adjust. We are flexible. But, we go over our finances often to make sure we are achieving our goals. Some specific goals I'd recommend that the two of you consider in your first such yearly meeting: You get out of life what you put into it, and you will get out of your finances what the two of you put into them. By being on the same page, your marriage will be much happier. Money/finances are one of the top causes of divorce. If you two are working together on this, you are much more likely to succeed."
},
{
"docid": "571382",
"title": "",
"text": "Parties are source of happiness and merrymaking, whether they are birthday parties for girls in Houston and Katy, or back to school parties, or just a party to surprise your daughter. It is not important factor how big or small a party is as long as the fun quotient is maintained throughout the length of the party. If you are ready to throw a party for your daughter and her BFFs — Spa on Wheels would be the best idea for you!"
},
{
"docid": "519174",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In addition to the choice that saving for retirement affords - itself a great comfort - the miracle of compounding is so great that even if you chose to work in old age, having set aside sums of money that grow will itself help your future. The are so many versions of the \"\"saving money in your 20s\"\" that equals millions of dollars that the numbers aren't worth showing here. Still, any time value of money example will illustrate the truth. That said, time value of money does start with the assumption that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. Inflation, after all, eats away at the value of a dollar. It's just that compounding so outshines inflation that any mature person who is willing to wait, should be convinced. Until you work the examples, however, it's not at all obvious. It took my daughter years to figure out that saving her allowance let her get way better stuff. The same is true of everyone.\""
},
{
"docid": "376221",
"title": "",
"text": "> Owning an expensive home Why do people seem to think owning a home is expensive? Not everyone that owns a home is rich, or has an expensive home. Home ownership has many more benefits to renting, and the government should absolutely encourage it. It encourages people to take ownership in a community and brings down housing costs for everyone. People don't only rent apartments in high rises, you understand that, right? People rent two flats, houses, cabins, mansions, condos. Your view and knowledge of this is narrow at best."
},
{
"docid": "178717",
"title": "",
"text": "You are not perfectly clear, but I will assume that your ex-girlfriend owns the car and that her name is the only one on the title. The fact that you paid off the loan and repaired the car is completely irrelevant. From a court's point of view you gifted the car to your girlfriend. If you are listed on the title, then your best move is to steal the car and hide it so she can't steal it back. Note that you are not actually stealing it if you are listed on the title since you own the car. (Try to steal it when it is parked in some public place. Avoid going onto her property.) Wait until she gets hungry, then offer her $500 if she agrees to remove her name from the title. By the way, after you steal the car, send a certified letter to her informing her that you have possession of the car. This is so that she has no grounds to report it stolen. Check with the police periodically to make sure she doesn't report it stolen anyway. If she reports it stolen AFTER you have notified her that you have possession, then it is a crime (making a false report)."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "326094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "118557",
"title": "",
"text": "See the accepted answer for this question. What effect will credit card churning for frequent flyer miles have on my credit score? This does not directly answer 'how often...' that you asked, but it states that the answerer opens 5-15 accounts per year. So the answer to your question is, as often as you want, as long as you manage your account ages. The reason for this is that there are two factors in opening a new account that affect your credit card score. One is average age of accounts. The other is credit inquiries. That answerer, with FICO in high 700s, sees about a 5% swing based on new cards and closing old ones. You'll have to manage average age of accounts. I assume this is done by keeping some older ones open to prop up the average, and by judiciously closing the churn accounts. Finally, if you choose to engage in churning, and you intend to apply for a large loan and want a good credit score, simply pause the account open/close part of the churn a couple of months ahead of time. Your score should recover from the temporary hits of the inquiries. The churning communities really do have how to guides which discuss the details of this. Key phrase: credit card churning."
},
{
"docid": "486376",
"title": "",
"text": "Good question. I have no idea what legal recourse they have to reverse gift and credit card purchases. Cash people are probably safe. Like I said, it's unlikely they will do anything, but I would not be holding on to gift cards purchased via gift cards if it was my money on the line."
},
{
"docid": "490100",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The preferred accounts are designed to hope you do one of several things: Pay one day late. Then charge you all the deferred interest. Many people think If they put $X a month aside, then pay just before the 6 months, 12 moths or no-payment before 2014 period ends then I will be able to afford the computer, carpet, or furniture. The interest rate they will charge you if you are late will be buried in the fine print. But expect it to be very high. Pay on time, but now that you have a card with their logo on it. So now you feel that you should buy the accessories from them. They hope that you become a long time customer. They want to make money on your next computer also. Their \"\"Bill Me Later\"\" option on that site as essentially the same as the preferred account. In the end you will have another line of credit. They will do a credit check. The impact, both positive and negative, on your credit picture is discussed in other questions. Because two of the three options you mentioned in your question (cash, debit card) imply that you have enough cash to buy the computer today, there is no reason to get another credit card to finance the purchase. The delayed payment with the preferred account, will save you about 10 dollars (2000 * 1% interest * 0.5 years). The choice of store might save you more money, though with Apple there are fewer places to get legitimate discounts. Here are your options: How to get the limit increased: You can ask for a temporary increase in the credit limit, or you can ask for a permanent one. Some credit cards can do this online, others require you to talk to them. If they are going to agree to this, it can be done in a few minutes. Some individuals on this site have even been able to send the check to the credit card company before completing the purchase, thus \"\"increasing\"\" their credit limit. YMMV. I have no idea if it works. A good reason to use the existing credit card, instead of the debit card is if the credit card is a rewards card. The extra money or points can be very nice. Just make sure you pay it back before the bill is due. In fact you can send the money to the credit card company the same day the computer arrives in the mail. Having the transaction on the credit card can also get you purchase protection, and some cards automatically extend the warranty.\""
},
{
"docid": "272890",
"title": "",
"text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating."
},
{
"docid": "261197",
"title": "",
"text": "If the bank wants to close your account, they will do just that. Having a small ongoing balance isn't going to prompt them to keep it open. Typically, the risk is for a card with zero usage to be closed, as it's a cost to them to keep the account open, and it has no revenue. To avoid this, it's a good idea to use that card or cards for a regular purchase, say, gasoline. A non-impulse buy, and just pay in full to avoid interest. There's no need to keep a balance accruing interest. Keep in mind - A bill contains a month of charges. The bill for December is issued on the 31st, but due January 25th or so. When you pay it in full you do not have zero balance, you have the charges from January. This accomplishes your goal, will no interest."
},
{
"docid": "28074",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\""
},
{
"docid": "353980",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\""
},
{
"docid": "183774",
"title": "",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc."
},
{
"docid": "305954",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no way to stop any merchant from setting a recurring charge flag on a purchase. According to the following article, Mastercard and Visa encourages merchants to use this feature and even give them a better rate. I have found it impossible to stop these unauthorized transactions. The article sites that the merchant is allowed to march the charges across expired cards to find a good card that you might have as well as the article states they can cross banks to find you if you have the same type of card. Virtual account numbers will not protect you. Sorry but the only solution I have found is to close the account with the bank and move to a different type of card, mastercard to visa, or vice versa. This will only protect you for one move ,because if you have to do this again. Merchants that you thought were forgotten even years later will find you and post a charge legally. Virtual numbers from Mastercard or Visa won't stop them. I believe this is the number one reason for credit card fraud for consumers. There is no reason for a merchant to let anyone off the hook when the credit card company will side with them. The article below does state that Mastercard does have a \"\"stop recurring payment\"\" flag. Apparently no CSR tht I have talked to knows about it when I have asked to get a problem fixed. I have found that the only way to stop these charges from happening is to close all my visa and mastercard credit cards, pay with a check that you write and mail or a PayPal one time payment that is sent to pay for an invoice. Recurring Credit-Card Charges May Irk Consumers\""
},
{
"docid": "345448",
"title": "",
"text": "What makes a credit card risky is that it requires discipline. It is very easy to buy things that you cannot afford with a credit card. Credit cards usually require a minimum payment every month if you owe them money, but if you pay only the minimum amount, your debt will grow quickly. And since the interest rates are usually very high, you can easily get into a state where you are overwhelmed by your debt. The correct way to use a credit card is to pay the complete bill every month. If you can't afford to pay the complete bill because you spent too much, cut up your credit card. On the positive side, there are many situations where paying by credit card will give you protection if you don't get the goods that you paid for, because the credit card company is fully responsible for those goods, just like the seller. So if you pay for a $5,000 holiday with a credit card and the company you paid to goes bankrupt, the credit card company will refund your money. Do not ever look at cash back on purchases. You only get cash back if you spend money. Getting $50 cash back is of no use if you had to get $2,500 deeper in debt to get that cash back. (Some people might contradict this. But if you ask for advice on money.stackexchange then this is the correct advice for you that you should follow)."
},
{
"docid": "496080",
"title": "",
"text": "Your plan will work to increase your total credit capacity (good for your credit score) and reduce your utilization (also good). As mentioned, you will need to be careful to use these cards periodically or they will get closed, but it will work. The question is whether this will help you or not. In addition to credit capacity and utilization, your credit score looks at things like These factors may hurt you as you continue to open accounts. You can easily get to the stage where your score is not benefitting much from increased capacity and it is getting hurt a lot by pulls and low average age. BTW you are correct that closing accounts generally hurts your score. It probably reduces average age, may reduce maximum age, reduces your capacity, and increases your utilization."
},
{
"docid": "584419",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bank of America has been selling off their local branches to smaller banks in recent years. Here are a few news stories related to this: Along with the branch buildings, the local customers' savings and checking accounts are sold to the new bank. It is interesting that you were told that your savings account is being sold, but that your checking account will remain with BofA. I guess it depends on the terms of the particular sale. Here are your options, as I see it: Let the savings account move to the new bank, and see what the new terms are like. You might actually like the new bank. If you don't, you can shop around and close your account at the new bank after it has been created. Close your account now, before the move. If you have a different bank you'd like to move to, there is no need to wait. Since your checking account is apparently staying with BofA, you could move all your money from your savings account to your checking account, closing your savings account. Then after \"\"mid August\"\" when the local branch switches to the new bank and everyone else's savings account has moved, you can call up BofA and tell them you want to move some of the money from your checking account into a new savings account. If you really have your heart set on staying with BofA, option 3 looks like a good, easy choice. To address your other concerns: Bank of America is a big credit card company, so I doubt that your credit card is being sold off. Your credit card account should stay as-is. Even if your savings account and checking account are at a different bank, there is no need to switch credit cards. Your savings and checking accounts have nothing to do with your credit report or score, so there is no concern there. If you end up wanting to switch to a new credit card with a different bank, there are minor hits to your credit score involved with applying for a new card and closing your current card, but if I were you I would not worry about your credit score in this. Switch credit cards if you want a change, and keep your credit card if you don't.\""
},
{
"docid": "258465",
"title": "",
"text": "You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them. Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance."
},
{
"docid": "464296",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit Score is rather misleading, each provider of credit uses their own system to decide if they wish to lend to you. They will also not tell you how the combine all the factoring together. Closing unused account is good, as it reduced the risk of identity theft and you have less paperwork to deal with. It looks good if a company that knows you will agrees to give you more credit, as clearly they think you are a good risk. Having more total credit allowed on account is bad, as you may use it and not be able to pay all your bills. Using all your credit is bad, as it looks like you are not in control. Using a “pay day lender” is VERY bad, as only people that are out of control do so. Credit cards should be used for short term credit paying them off in full most months, but it is OK to take advantage of some interest free credit."
},
{
"docid": "482932",
"title": "",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)"
},
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "400202",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you look around online and read about credit scores, you'll find all kinds of information about what you should do to maximize your credit score. However, in my opinion, it just isn't worth rearranging your life just to try to achieve some arbitrary score. If you pay your bills on time and are regularly using a credit card, your score will take care of itself. Yes, you can cut up the card you don't like and keep the credit card account open. The bank may close your account at some point in the future because of a lack of activity, but if they do, don't worry about it. You have other accounts that you are using. Personally, I don't like having open credit accounts that I'm not using; I close accounts when I'm done with them. I realize that it goes against everything that you will read, but my score is very high and my oldest open credit card account is 2 years old. Don't let them scare you into credit activity that you don't want just to try to \"\"win\"\" at the credit score.\""
},
{
"docid": "102823",
"title": "",
"text": ">Hate to break it to you but it's the republican policies of deregulation and tax cuts we can't afford that got us this shit sandwich. Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending while yes, tax revenues fall a bit. But you don't take actions that will make tax revenues fall more. Putting additional burdens on companies doesnt yield more tax revenue. If it did, why not tax them at 90%? But then guess what happens along that chart curve? There are no companies left. How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively? Ok genius, what about the other $1 Trillion/year? WE SPEND TOO MUCH! >Really? Seems to me like a person living paycheck to paycheck would actually have a very good idea of what it's like to live on the edge of bankruptcy Except for most people close to bankruptcy they never had any capital to begin with. They lived pay check to pay check, using credit cards, buying houses, buying cars. Businesses must keep a MUCH larger cushion of liquid capital and assets and must plan YEARS in advance. ---very few individuals do this or ever will. The only correlation is that more and more liabilities are not meeting income. Except when an individual goes bankrupt it's mostly on them. If a company goes bankrupt it can effect hundreds or thousands of employees AND the company. An indivdual going bankrupt won't then bankrupt their creditors or vendors but a company going bankrupt very well could. I don't know if you knew this, but the United States itself is bankrupt.... We can't meet liabilities with the current income. That doesn't mean increased taxes to increase income. It means reducing liabilities and creating an envionment where those who bring in the revenue can expand. What we're talking about here is companies receiving additional burdens, not less, thus there is an incentive to decrease liabilities where possible, sell or close if necessary."
},
{
"docid": "228871",
"title": "",
"text": "Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons. Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "365263",
"title": "",
"text": "It is an issue of both utilization and average age of accounts. If your cards with $0 balances on them are: A) newer cards than the ones you are carrying balances on and you don't want them B) much lower limit cards than the ones you are carrying balances on then you can raise your score by closing them, as the utilization change won't be a large factor and you can raise the average age of your open accounts."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "60817",
"title": "",
"text": "One more thing to favor the card. Extended warranty, or damage coverage. An iPad, if dropped on a hard surface, stands a good chance of breaking. Apple isn't going to cover that, as it's not a defect. Many credit cards offer free coverage for breakage of this type as well as doubling the warranty up to a year. This second year of coverage is worth about 10% of the item cost. To be clear, I'm talking about running the expense through a card and paying in full, some call it credit no different than those who carry a balance month to month and pay 18% interest. I believe if I have the money to spend on an item, and use the card to get that coverage along with the benefits others posted, it's a convenience, nothing more. Some people who use certain budgeting methods like to set up a payment each week so the bill comes in close to zero. Whatever works."
},
{
"docid": "312618",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two factors in your credit score that may be affected. The first is payment history. Lenders like to see that you pay your bills, which is the most straightforward part of credit scores IMO. If you've actually been paying your bills on time, though, then this should still be fine. The second factor is the average age of your open accounts. Longer is considered better here because it means you have a history of paying your bills, and you aren't applying for a bunch of credit recently (in which case you may be taking on too much and will have difficulties paying them). If this card is closed, then it will no longer count for this calculation. If you don't have any other open credit accounts, then that means as soon as you open another one, your average age will be one day, and it will take a long time to get it to \"\"good\"\" levels; if you have other matured accounts, then those will balance out any new accounts so you don't get hit as much. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it's good to get cards without yearly fees, because you can keep them open for a long time even if you switch to using a different card primarily.\""
},
{
"docid": "391384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "257483",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\""
},
{
"docid": "591714",
"title": "",
"text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer."
},
{
"docid": "111594",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit cards come with an interest-free grace period of ~25 days as long as you pay your balance in full every month. In other words, charges made in January will appear on a bill cut on Jan 31, and due around the 25th of February. If paid in full by 2/25, there's no interest. It is a very good idea to get in the habit of paying off your entire balance every month for this very reason. Don't buy anything you can't afford to pay for at the end of the month when the credit card bill is due. You'll avoid interest charges, build good habits, and improve your credit score. By just paying the minimum amount due, you'll be charged interest from the moment of purchase, and the grace period on new purchases goes away. Credit card companies make the minimum amount due relatively low as a way to encourage you to pay more and more in interest every month. Don't fall for it! Look for a credit card with zero annual fee. Sure, rewards are nice, but it's more important to avoid fees, keep the interest rate low, and get in the habit of paying in full every month, in which case the interest rate won't matter. Your bank or credit union is a good place to start looking."
},
{
"docid": "44223",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest risk is Credit Utilization rate. If you have a total of $10,000 in revolving credit (ie: credit card line) and you ever have more than 50% (or 33% to be conservative) on the card at any time then your credit score will be negatively impacted. This will be a negative impact even if you charge it on day one and pay it off in full on day 2. Doesn't make much sense but credit companies are playing the averages: on average they find that people who get close to maxing their credit limit are in some sort of financial trouble. You're better off to make small purchases each month, under $100, and pay them off right away. That will build a better credit history - and score."
},
{
"docid": "296165",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming the question is \"\"will they close it for inactivity (alone)\"\".. the answer is \"\"Nope\"\" ... unequivocally. Update: < My answer is geared to credit Cards issues by companies that deal in credit, not merchandise (i.e. store cards, retailer cards, etc). Retailers (like Amazon, etc), want to sell goods and are in the credit card business to generate sales. Banks and credit companies (about whom I am referring) make their money primarily on interest and secondarily on service charges (either point of use charged to the vendor that accepts payment, or fees charged to the user).> The only major issuer I will say that it might be possible is Discover, because I never kept a Discover card. I also don't keep department store cards, which might possibly do this; but I do doubt it in either of those cases too. My answer is based on Having 2 AMEX cards (Optima and Blue) and multiple other Visa/MC's that I NEVER use... and most of these I have not for over 10+ years. Since I am also presuming that you are also not talking about an account that charges a yearly or other maintenance fee.. Why would they keep the account open with the overhead (statements and other mailings,etc)? Because you MIGHT use it. You MIGHT not be able to pay it off each month. Because you MIGHT end up paying thousands in interest over many years. The pennies they pay for maintaining your account and sending you new cards with chip technology, etc.. are all worth the gamble of getting recouped from you! This is why sales people waste their time with lots of people who will not buy their product, even though it costs them time and money to prospect.. because they MIGHT buy. Naturally, there are a multitude of reasons for canceling a card; but inactivity is not one. I have no less than 10+ \"\"inactive\"\" cards, one that has a balance, and two I use \"\"infrequently\"\". I really would not mind if they closed all those accounts.. but they won't ;) So enjoy your AMEX knowing that your Visa will be there when you need/want it.. The bank that issues your Visa is banking on it! (presuming you don't foul up financially) Cheers!\""
},
{
"docid": "261197",
"title": "",
"text": "If the bank wants to close your account, they will do just that. Having a small ongoing balance isn't going to prompt them to keep it open. Typically, the risk is for a card with zero usage to be closed, as it's a cost to them to keep the account open, and it has no revenue. To avoid this, it's a good idea to use that card or cards for a regular purchase, say, gasoline. A non-impulse buy, and just pay in full to avoid interest. There's no need to keep a balance accruing interest. Keep in mind - A bill contains a month of charges. The bill for December is issued on the 31st, but due January 25th or so. When you pay it in full you do not have zero balance, you have the charges from January. This accomplishes your goal, will no interest."
},
{
"docid": "299840",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are correct. Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction. But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash. The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee. That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct. They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it. Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can. These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as \"\"good\"\" ways to build up your credit. Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less. However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part. Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies. A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions. (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself.\""
},
{
"docid": "286843",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way."
},
{
"docid": "181855",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well, I answered a very similar question \"\"Credit card payment date\"\" where I showed that for a normal cycle, the average charge isn't due for 40 days. The range is 35-55, so if you want to feel good about the float just charge everything the day after the cycle closes, and nothing else the rest of the month. Why is this so interesting? It's no trick, and no secret. By the way, this isn't likely to be of any use when you're buying gas, groceries, or normal purchases. But, I suppose if you have a large purchase, say a big TV, $3000, this will buy you extra time to pay. It would be remiss of me to not clearly state that anyone who needs to take advantage of this \"\"trick\"\" is the same person who probably shouldn't use credit cards at all. Those who use cards are best served by charging what they can afford to pay at that moment and not base today's charges on what paychecks will come in by the due date of the credit card bill.\""
},
{
"docid": "290714",
"title": "",
"text": "Pulling money out of a credit card is generally a bad idea. You'll be hit with interest from day 1, and some credit cards have cash advance fees on top of that. If you are really desperate for running up an automatic charge on your credit card to maintain use, then you have a few options: Personally, the charity route makes the most sense to me. You can probably set up an automatic donation of less than 5 quid, and it may be tax deductible to boot. Plus, you're helping an organization that (hopefully) is doing some good in the world."
},
{
"docid": "171473",
"title": "",
"text": "While technically true, a card issuer can cancel your card for almost any reason they want, it's highly unlikely they'll cancel it because you pay your bills! There are many, many people out there that pay their bills in full every month without ever paying a cent in credit card interest. I wouldn't ever purposefully incur any interest on a credit card. Related anecdote: I used to have a credit card that I only used for gas purchases because they gave 5% off for fuel. The issuer eventually discontinued the program (I assume because people like me took advantage of it.) So while they didn't cancel my card, the bonus eventually went away. I miss that card. My conclusion: if you can take advantage of promotional rates, by all means, go for it. You don't owe them any favors. Enjoy it as long as it lasts."
},
{
"docid": "400202",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you look around online and read about credit scores, you'll find all kinds of information about what you should do to maximize your credit score. However, in my opinion, it just isn't worth rearranging your life just to try to achieve some arbitrary score. If you pay your bills on time and are regularly using a credit card, your score will take care of itself. Yes, you can cut up the card you don't like and keep the credit card account open. The bank may close your account at some point in the future because of a lack of activity, but if they do, don't worry about it. You have other accounts that you are using. Personally, I don't like having open credit accounts that I'm not using; I close accounts when I'm done with them. I realize that it goes against everything that you will read, but my score is very high and my oldest open credit card account is 2 years old. Don't let them scare you into credit activity that you don't want just to try to \"\"win\"\" at the credit score.\""
},
{
"docid": "299819",
"title": "",
"text": "How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea."
},
{
"docid": "170141",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two fundamentally different reasons merchants will give cash discounts. One is that they will not have to pay interchange fees on cash (or pay much lower fees on no-reward debit cards). Gas stations in my home state of NJ already universally offer different cash and credit prices. Costco will not even take Visa and MasterCard credit cards (debit only) for this reason. The second reason, not often talked about but widely known amongst smaller merchants, is that they can fail to declare the sale (or claim a smaller portion of the sale) to the authorities in order to reduce their tax liability. Obviously the larger stores will not risk their jobs for this, but smaller owner-operated (\"\"mom and pop\"\") stores often will. This applies to both reduced sales tax liability and income tax liability. This used to be more limited per sale (but more widespread overall), since tax authorities would look closely for a mismatch between declared income and spending, but with an ever-larger proportion of customers paying by credit card, merchants can take a bigger chunk of their cash sales off the books without drawing too much suspicion. Both of the above are more applicable to TVs than cars, since (1) car salesmen make substantial money from offering financing and (2) all cars must be registered with the state, so alternative records of sales abound. Also, car prices tend to be at or near the credit limit of most cards, so it is not as common to pay for them in this way.\""
},
{
"docid": "14731",
"title": "",
"text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)"
},
{
"docid": "481822",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "218088",
"title": "",
"text": "In your specific case, I would leave them open unless you have a specific reason for wanting to close them - particularly, unless you feel closing them is necessary for you to not misuse them. The impact on the credit score is not why I say this, though. Much more important are the two competing real factors: My suggestion would be to take the cards and put them in your file cabinet, or whatever would cause you to not use them. In fact, you could even cut them up but not close the accounts - I had an account open that I didn't possess a physical card for several years for and didn't use at all, and it stayed open (though it's not guaranteed they'll keep it open for you if you never use it). In an emergency you could then ask them to send you a new copy of the card very easily. But, keep them, just in case you need them. Once you have paid off your balances on your balance-carrying cards, then you should consider closing some of them. Keep enough to be able to live for ~4-6 months (a similar amount to the ideal rainy day fund in savings, basically) and then close others, particularly if you can do so in a way that keeps your average account age reasonably stable."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "286843",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way."
},
{
"docid": "481822",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."
},
{
"docid": "335859",
"title": "",
"text": "As has been stated, you don't need to actively bank with a credit union to apply for one of their credit cards. That said, one benefit to having account activity, and significant capital with a CU, is to increase the likelihood of having a larger credit line granted to you, when you do apply. If you are going to use the card sparingly however, then this is a non issue. That said, if you really want to maximize card benefits, then you want to look for cards with large sign up bonuses (e.g. Chase Sapphire, or Ink Bold if you have a business) and sign up exclusively for those bonuses. These cards offer rewards in excessive value of $1000 in travel services (hotels/plane tickets), or $500 cash back if you prefer straight cash back redemptions. If you prefer to keep it really simple, you can sign up for a cash back card, like the Amex Fidelity, which offers 2% cash back everywhere, with no annual fee (albeit the cash back is through their investment account, which you don't actually have to 'invest' with). Personally, I have the Penfed card, and use it exclusively for gas (5% cash back). I also have a Charles Schwab bank account, which I keep funded exclusively for ATM withdrawals (free ATM usage, worldwide, 100% fee reimbursement). I use the accounts exclusively for the benefit they provide me, and no more and have never had an issue. I also have 3 dozen other credit cards which I signed up for exclusively for the sign up bonus, but that's outside the scope of this question. I only mention it because you seem to believe it is difficult to get approved for a new credit line. If your credit is good however, you won't have a problem. For a small idea, of how to maximize credit card bonus categories, I would advise you read this. As mentioned in the article, its possible to get rewards almost everywhere you shop. In short, anytime you use cash, you are missing out on a multitude of benefits a credit card offers you (e.g. see the benefits of a visa signature card) in addition to points/cash back."
},
{
"docid": "112154",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit is not free money. The idea is you will repay all of it, within a reasonable amount of time. It is abundantly clear you either don't really understand this concept or completely failed at planning for it. Or even at keeping up with how much you owe - you are curiously blaming the bank for letting you go over the limit. The reason most banks will authorize that for credit customers is they don't want to strand people in some sort of an emergency situation. I'd recommend you cut back on your spending and work on paying the balance down. If you have been charged any over the limit fees you can attempt to negotiate getting those credited. Most banks will compromise on that the first time. I don't really recommend it, but if there are some circumstances surrounding this that are temporary and you are very confident about being able to manage money better in the future - chances are you might be able to get approved for another card. If you otherwise have had some good credit history and this situation is very recent, it may not even show up on your credit report yet and another bank might happily approve you. They may even offer a low or zero interest (for some time) balance transfer deal, which you should use to get the other card within the limit. If that ends up working, it's very important that you keep in mind having dodged the bullet once doesn't mean you will ever be able to do it again. Get your budget in order and pay things off."
},
{
"docid": "308131",
"title": "",
"text": "1- To max out rewards. I have 5 different credit cards, one gives me 5% back on gas, another on groceries, another on Amazon, another at restaurants and another 2% on everything else. If I had only one card, I would be missing out on a lot of rewards. Of course, you have to remember to use the right card for the right purchase. 2- To increase your credit limit. One card can give you a credit limit of $5,000, but if you have 4 of them with the same limits, you have increased your purchasing power to $20,000. This helps improve your credit score. Of course, it's never a good idea to owe $20,000 in credit card debt."
},
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "60817",
"title": "",
"text": "One more thing to favor the card. Extended warranty, or damage coverage. An iPad, if dropped on a hard surface, stands a good chance of breaking. Apple isn't going to cover that, as it's not a defect. Many credit cards offer free coverage for breakage of this type as well as doubling the warranty up to a year. This second year of coverage is worth about 10% of the item cost. To be clear, I'm talking about running the expense through a card and paying in full, some call it credit no different than those who carry a balance month to month and pay 18% interest. I believe if I have the money to spend on an item, and use the card to get that coverage along with the benefits others posted, it's a convenience, nothing more. Some people who use certain budgeting methods like to set up a payment each week so the bill comes in close to zero. Whatever works."
},
{
"docid": "183660",
"title": "",
"text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account."
},
{
"docid": "591714",
"title": "",
"text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer."
},
{
"docid": "304009",
"title": "",
"text": "credit cards are almost never closed for inactivity. i have had dozens of cards innactive for years on end, and only one was ever closed on me for inactivity. i would bet a single 1$ transaction per calendar year would keep all your cards open. as such, you could forget automating the process and just spend 20 minutes a year making manual 1$ payments (e.g. to your isp, utility company, google play, etc.). alternatively, many charities will let you set up an automatic monthly donation for any amount (e.g. 1$ to wikipedia). or perhaps you could treat yourself to an mp3 once a month (arguably a charitable donation in the age of file sharing). side note: i use both of these strategies to get the 12 debit card transactions per month required by my kasasa checking account."
},
{
"docid": "183774",
"title": "",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc."
},
{
"docid": "44223",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest risk is Credit Utilization rate. If you have a total of $10,000 in revolving credit (ie: credit card line) and you ever have more than 50% (or 33% to be conservative) on the card at any time then your credit score will be negatively impacted. This will be a negative impact even if you charge it on day one and pay it off in full on day 2. Doesn't make much sense but credit companies are playing the averages: on average they find that people who get close to maxing their credit limit are in some sort of financial trouble. You're better off to make small purchases each month, under $100, and pay them off right away. That will build a better credit history - and score."
},
{
"docid": "482932",
"title": "",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)"
},
{
"docid": "274721",
"title": "",
"text": "If your business is a Sole Proprietorship and meets the criteria, then you would file form Schedule C. In this case you can deduct all eligible business expenses, regardless of how you pay for them (credit/debit/check/cash). The fact that it was paid for using a business credit card isn't relevant as long as it is a true business expense. The general rules apply: Yes - if you sustain a net loss, that will carry over to your personal tax return. Note: even though it isn't necessary to use a business credit card for business expenses, it's still an extremely good idea to do so, for a variety of reasons."
},
{
"docid": "51959",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would not call this a \"\"good\"\" idea. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea either. Before you even consider it, you need to do a little bit of soul searching. If there is ANY chance that having multiple credit cards could entice you to spend more than you otherwise would, then this is definitely a bad idea. Avoiding temptation is the key to preventing regrettable actions (in all aspects of life). Psychoanalysis aside, let's take a mathematical approach to the question. I believe your conclusion is correct if you add some qualifiers to it: A few years from now, then your credit score will probably be higher than if you just had 1 credit card. Here are some other things to consider: And, saving the best for last: As for the hard inquiries, they should only have an effect on your credit score for 1 year (though they can be seen on your report for 2 years). Final thought: if you decide to do this (and I personally don't recommend it), I would keep the number of applications smaller (3-5 instead of 10-15). I also would only choose cards that have no annual fee. Try to choose 1 card that has 1-2% cash back and make that your regular card.\""
},
{
"docid": "111594",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit cards come with an interest-free grace period of ~25 days as long as you pay your balance in full every month. In other words, charges made in January will appear on a bill cut on Jan 31, and due around the 25th of February. If paid in full by 2/25, there's no interest. It is a very good idea to get in the habit of paying off your entire balance every month for this very reason. Don't buy anything you can't afford to pay for at the end of the month when the credit card bill is due. You'll avoid interest charges, build good habits, and improve your credit score. By just paying the minimum amount due, you'll be charged interest from the moment of purchase, and the grace period on new purchases goes away. Credit card companies make the minimum amount due relatively low as a way to encourage you to pay more and more in interest every month. Don't fall for it! Look for a credit card with zero annual fee. Sure, rewards are nice, but it's more important to avoid fees, keep the interest rate low, and get in the habit of paying in full every month, in which case the interest rate won't matter. Your bank or credit union is a good place to start looking."
},
{
"docid": "391384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "123733",
"title": "",
"text": "First step is to see if you have any family members which can co-sign for you so you can get a credit card, then from there as you pay off the credit cards payments you can slowly build credit. However, since you don't have any previous credit history it'll be a slow process. I think that would be a good first step in the right direction. Alternatively, you can see if close relatives such as your parents can help pay for a financial advisor who can help you much better with issues like these"
},
{
"docid": "102823",
"title": "",
"text": ">Hate to break it to you but it's the republican policies of deregulation and tax cuts we can't afford that got us this shit sandwich. Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending while yes, tax revenues fall a bit. But you don't take actions that will make tax revenues fall more. Putting additional burdens on companies doesnt yield more tax revenue. If it did, why not tax them at 90%? But then guess what happens along that chart curve? There are no companies left. How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively? Ok genius, what about the other $1 Trillion/year? WE SPEND TOO MUCH! >Really? Seems to me like a person living paycheck to paycheck would actually have a very good idea of what it's like to live on the edge of bankruptcy Except for most people close to bankruptcy they never had any capital to begin with. They lived pay check to pay check, using credit cards, buying houses, buying cars. Businesses must keep a MUCH larger cushion of liquid capital and assets and must plan YEARS in advance. ---very few individuals do this or ever will. The only correlation is that more and more liabilities are not meeting income. Except when an individual goes bankrupt it's mostly on them. If a company goes bankrupt it can effect hundreds or thousands of employees AND the company. An indivdual going bankrupt won't then bankrupt their creditors or vendors but a company going bankrupt very well could. I don't know if you knew this, but the United States itself is bankrupt.... We can't meet liabilities with the current income. That doesn't mean increased taxes to increase income. It means reducing liabilities and creating an envionment where those who bring in the revenue can expand. What we're talking about here is companies receiving additional burdens, not less, thus there is an incentive to decrease liabilities where possible, sell or close if necessary."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "252534",
"title": "",
"text": "In my own case, my credit score went up drastically after I closed cards. It did go down a bit (like 10 points) in the short term. Within 6 months, however, I did see significant gains. This would include closing the American Express card that I had for like 10 years. According much of what I read, you should never close a AMEX card. I did and it did not hurt me. What helps all this is that my utilization is zero."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "308131",
"title": "",
"text": "1- To max out rewards. I have 5 different credit cards, one gives me 5% back on gas, another on groceries, another on Amazon, another at restaurants and another 2% on everything else. If I had only one card, I would be missing out on a lot of rewards. Of course, you have to remember to use the right card for the right purchase. 2- To increase your credit limit. One card can give you a credit limit of $5,000, but if you have 4 of them with the same limits, you have increased your purchasing power to $20,000. This helps improve your credit score. Of course, it's never a good idea to owe $20,000 in credit card debt."
},
{
"docid": "391384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "68431",
"title": "",
"text": "Buy a car. Vehicle loans, like mortgages, are installment loans. Credit cards are revolving lines of credit. In the US, your credit score factors in the different types of credit you have. Note that there are several methods for calculating credit scores, including multiple types of FICO scores. You could buy a car and drive for Uber to help cash flow the car payments and/or save for your next purchase. As others have suggested, you should be very careful with debt and ask critical questions before taking it on. Swiping a credit card is more about your behavior and self-control than it is logic and math. And if you ever want to start a business or make multi-million dollar purchases (e.g. real estate), or do a lot of other things, you'll need good credit."
},
{
"docid": "286843",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way."
},
{
"docid": "123733",
"title": "",
"text": "First step is to see if you have any family members which can co-sign for you so you can get a credit card, then from there as you pay off the credit cards payments you can slowly build credit. However, since you don't have any previous credit history it'll be a slow process. I think that would be a good first step in the right direction. Alternatively, you can see if close relatives such as your parents can help pay for a financial advisor who can help you much better with issues like these"
},
{
"docid": "442784",
"title": "",
"text": "Now, what if I were to spend the entire $2,000 limit on a single purchase? I've been saving up in anticipation of this purchase and therefore have the money already set aside in the bank, so I could pay off the entire $2k immediately. There is no problem with doing this. There's a bit of a time delay in credit reporting, so if you pay immediately in the middle of your statement period it will never even be reported that your card was maxed out. Make the purchase some time in the middle of the billing period, then log in to your account and pay the total before the statement period closes. If you let it roll to the next statement period, it will be reported that your account is maxed out, and possibly, you will be charged interest and potentially a fee for exceeding your limit. Your utilization is only calculated in a snapshot, there is no history kept. Even if you let your card be reported at 100% utilization, you could pay the balance that month with 0% then reported and your score will bounce back as though nothing ever happened. Separately, if you have had this card for a long while you may want to request a credit line increase."
},
{
"docid": "400202",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you look around online and read about credit scores, you'll find all kinds of information about what you should do to maximize your credit score. However, in my opinion, it just isn't worth rearranging your life just to try to achieve some arbitrary score. If you pay your bills on time and are regularly using a credit card, your score will take care of itself. Yes, you can cut up the card you don't like and keep the credit card account open. The bank may close your account at some point in the future because of a lack of activity, but if they do, don't worry about it. You have other accounts that you are using. Personally, I don't like having open credit accounts that I'm not using; I close accounts when I'm done with them. I realize that it goes against everything that you will read, but my score is very high and my oldest open credit card account is 2 years old. Don't let them scare you into credit activity that you don't want just to try to \"\"win\"\" at the credit score.\""
},
{
"docid": "433900",
"title": "",
"text": "This isn't exactly the answer you were looking for, but it is something else to consider. Rather than just running money through the card to get the bonus, have you considered spending that $5,000 in the form of good debt? In other words, can you purchase some asset that will create more cashflow than you would be paying on the card with the $5,000 balance? The idea is instead of running up the balance and paying it back off to get the bonus, maybe you could buy an asset for $5,000, create positive cashflow with the opportunity for long term capital gains, and get the credit card bonus. You could even turn around and use the bonus to pay back part of the credit card balance, thus reducing the payments and widening the profit margin on the asset."
},
{
"docid": "370496",
"title": "",
"text": "You have little chance of getting it deleted. I have the same situation, I closed mine in 2006, and the login still works. Keep the paperwork that you closed it (or print a PDF of the site showing so), and forget about it. If someone is trying to cheat, re-opening it should be the same difficulty as making a new one in your name, so it is not really an additional risk. You could also set the username and password both to a long random string, and not keep them. That soft-forces you to never login again. Note that it will also stay on your credit record for some years (but that's not a bad thing, as it is not in default; in the contrary). The only negative is that if you apply for credit, you might be ashamed of people seeing you ever having had a Sears or Macy's card or so."
},
{
"docid": "521987",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations on seeing your situation clearly! That's half the battle. To prevent yourself from going back into debt, you should get rid of any credit cards you have and close the accounts. Just use your debit card. Your post indicates you're not the type to splurge and get stuff just because you want it, so saving for a larger purchase and paying cash for it is probably something you're willing to do. Contrary to popular belief, you can live just fine without a credit card and without a credit score. If you're never going back into debt, you don't need a credit score. Buying a house is possible without one, but is admittedly more work for you and for the underwriters because they can't just ask the FICO god to bless you -- they have to actually see your finances, and you have to actually have some. (I realize many folks will hate this advice, but I am actually living it, and life is pretty good.) If you're in school, look at how much you spend on food while on campus. $5-$10/day for lunch adds up to $100-$200 over a month (M-F, four weeks). Buy groceries and pack a lunch if you can. If your expenses cannot be reduced anymore, you're going to have to get a job. There is nothing wrong with slowing down your studies and working a job to get your income up above your expenses. It stinks being a poor student, but it stinks even more to be a poor student with a mountain of debt. You'll find that working a job doesn't slow you down all that much. Tons of students work their way through school and graduate in plenty of time to get a good job. Good luck to you! You can do it."
},
{
"docid": "60817",
"title": "",
"text": "One more thing to favor the card. Extended warranty, or damage coverage. An iPad, if dropped on a hard surface, stands a good chance of breaking. Apple isn't going to cover that, as it's not a defect. Many credit cards offer free coverage for breakage of this type as well as doubling the warranty up to a year. This second year of coverage is worth about 10% of the item cost. To be clear, I'm talking about running the expense through a card and paying in full, some call it credit no different than those who carry a balance month to month and pay 18% interest. I believe if I have the money to spend on an item, and use the card to get that coverage along with the benefits others posted, it's a convenience, nothing more. Some people who use certain budgeting methods like to set up a payment each week so the bill comes in close to zero. Whatever works."
},
{
"docid": "483441",
"title": "",
"text": "If you keep going over budget with your credit card, then stop using the credit card. If you plan to pay off the card every month, then your balance should always be under whatever your budget is. For example, if you budget to spend $500, then even though your card has a limit of $5,000 you will never carry a balance of over $500. Most banks have an option to email and / or text message you when you pass a certain balance threshold; in this instance, you would set two notices, one when your balance exceeds $400 (warning you that you're close & need to start paying closer attention), and one when you exceed $500. Additionally, maybe you aren't ready to pay for everything with your credit card. I prefer to use mine just for groceries, and then pay it off at the end of the month. Whatever rewards you get for putting all of your purchases on the card are more than paid for when you cross your budget limit, costing you more in interest and fees. Perhaps starting with just one type of purchase (groceries or gas are good choices, as most consumers are fairly consistent in their purchases of both) would allow you to ease into using the card until you get used to managing your budget with it. Personal finances are all about behavior, not knowledge. Don't worry too much about slipping up right now and making a mistake; just keep practicing good behavior with your credit card, and soon managing your budget with it will be as natural for you as when you only used cash."
},
{
"docid": "12247",
"title": "",
"text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available."
},
{
"docid": "188028",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account:** It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "256921",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the other question, the OP had posted a screenshot (circa 2010) from Transunion with suggestions on how to improve the OP's credit score. One of these suggestions was to obtain \"\"retail revolving accounts.\"\" By this, they are referring to credit accounts from a particular retail store. Stores have been offering credit accounts for many years, and today, this usually takes the form of a store credit card. The credit card does not have the Visa or MasterCard logo on it, and is only valid at that particular store. (For example, Target has their own credit card that only works at Target stores.) The \"\"revolving\"\" part simply means that it is an open account that you can continue to make new charges and pay off, as opposed to a fixed retail financing loan (such as you might get at a high-end furniture store, where you obtain a loan for a single piece of furniture, and when it is paid off, the account is closed). The formula for credit scores are proprietary secrets. However, I haven't read anything that indicates that a store credit card helps your credit score more than a standard credit card. I suspect that Transunion was offering this tip in an attempt to give the consumer more ideas of how to add credit cards to their account that the consumer might not have thought of. But it is possible that buried deep in the credit score formula, there is something in there that gives you a higher score if you have a store credit card. As an aside, the OP in the other question had a credit score of 766 and was trying to make it higher. In my opinion, this is pointless. Remember that the financial services industry has an incentive to sell you as much debt as possible, and so all of their advice will point to you getting more credit accounts and getting more in debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "423816",
"title": "",
"text": "Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card."
},
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "596081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I found a good article on cnnmoney.com that touches on this titled \"\"5 Ways to Destroy your Credit\"\". One of these \"\"ways\"\", it says, is closing your credit cards. The article cited one expert who says, Since part of your score is based on the length of time certain lines of credit have been open, closing out that 10-year old credit card could take a bite out of your credit score... It's negative because it's taking away a reference to a positive credit history.\""
},
{
"docid": "183774",
"title": "",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "381720",
"title": "",
"text": "There is also security aspect. By reducing the number of active credit/debit cards, one significantly reduces the surface of attack. There is smaller chance of getting one of your card information stolen and misused (cf Target data leaks and others)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "258465",
"title": "",
"text": "You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them. Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance."
},
{
"docid": "464296",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit Score is rather misleading, each provider of credit uses their own system to decide if they wish to lend to you. They will also not tell you how the combine all the factoring together. Closing unused account is good, as it reduced the risk of identity theft and you have less paperwork to deal with. It looks good if a company that knows you will agrees to give you more credit, as clearly they think you are a good risk. Having more total credit allowed on account is bad, as you may use it and not be able to pay all your bills. Using all your credit is bad, as it looks like you are not in control. Using a “pay day lender” is VERY bad, as only people that are out of control do so. Credit cards should be used for short term credit paying them off in full most months, but it is OK to take advantage of some interest free credit."
},
{
"docid": "345448",
"title": "",
"text": "What makes a credit card risky is that it requires discipline. It is very easy to buy things that you cannot afford with a credit card. Credit cards usually require a minimum payment every month if you owe them money, but if you pay only the minimum amount, your debt will grow quickly. And since the interest rates are usually very high, you can easily get into a state where you are overwhelmed by your debt. The correct way to use a credit card is to pay the complete bill every month. If you can't afford to pay the complete bill because you spent too much, cut up your credit card. On the positive side, there are many situations where paying by credit card will give you protection if you don't get the goods that you paid for, because the credit card company is fully responsible for those goods, just like the seller. So if you pay for a $5,000 holiday with a credit card and the company you paid to goes bankrupt, the credit card company will refund your money. Do not ever look at cash back on purchases. You only get cash back if you spend money. Getting $50 cash back is of no use if you had to get $2,500 deeper in debt to get that cash back. (Some people might contradict this. But if you ask for advice on money.stackexchange then this is the correct advice for you that you should follow)."
},
{
"docid": "290714",
"title": "",
"text": "Pulling money out of a credit card is generally a bad idea. You'll be hit with interest from day 1, and some credit cards have cash advance fees on top of that. If you are really desperate for running up an automatic charge on your credit card to maintain use, then you have a few options: Personally, the charity route makes the most sense to me. You can probably set up an automatic donation of less than 5 quid, and it may be tax deductible to boot. Plus, you're helping an organization that (hopefully) is doing some good in the world."
},
{
"docid": "162589",
"title": "",
"text": "Closed accounts are used when calculating Average Age of Accounts (AAoA) by FICO. They will drop off your report 7 years after their closure, at which time your AAoA will decrease and most likely lower your credit score. Keeping your oldest card with an annual fee (AF) is a tough question. Since the exact calculations are a secret, it's hard to quantify the value of that card. Keep in mind that if you do decide to close it now (or right before the next AF) it will continue to count for the next 7 years. What you can do is the following: Assume you won't be applying for any new cards in the next 7 years. Look at all your current accounts and calculate the AAoA of all of them that would still be on your report 7 years from now. Calculate it with and without your oldest card. The difference will show you the effect closing the card today will have. There is a potential way to raise your AAoA depending on if you have an AMEX card. AMEX reports all accounts as being open from your original 'member since' date. If your oldest AMEX (ever, not necessarily still open) is older than your AAoA, opening a new AMEX will actually raise your average. age of accounts is 15% of your score. note that some websites that calculate your AAoA for you (like creditkarma) don't count closed accounts, but since FICO does the age those websites generate should be ignored."
},
{
"docid": "486376",
"title": "",
"text": "Good question. I have no idea what legal recourse they have to reverse gift and credit card purchases. Cash people are probably safe. Like I said, it's unlikely they will do anything, but I would not be holding on to gift cards purchased via gift cards if it was my money on the line."
},
{
"docid": "248615",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As Mr. Money Money Mustache once said: IF YOU HAVE CREDIT CARD DEBT, YOU SHOULD FEEL LIKE YOUR HAIR IS ON FIRE Student loan debt is different than credit card debt. Rather than having spent the money on just about anything, it was invested in improving yourself and probably your financial future. This was probably a good decision. However, unlike most credit card debt, if you ever have to file for bankruptcy, your student loans will not be erased. They will follow you forever. Pay your debts off as quickly as you can. While it may be true that \"\"long-term return on the stock market is about 7%\"\", you cannot assume that this will always be the case, especially in the short term. What if you had made this assumption in 2007? To assume that your stocks will beat a 6.4% guaranteed return over the next few years is not really investing. It's gambling.\""
},
{
"docid": "300489",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a \"\"credit history\"\" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no \"\"credit history,\"\" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their \"\"credit history.\"\" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that \"\"you have no income, but still want a credit card\"\", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read \"\"The Total Money Makeover\"\" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are.\""
},
{
"docid": "272890",
"title": "",
"text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating."
},
{
"docid": "183660",
"title": "",
"text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account."
},
{
"docid": "99449",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to close the card, close it. The impact on your credit score will be minimal, if any, and the impact on your life will likely be even less. First, as you noted, the history from your card does not disappear when you close the card; it will stay on your credit report for as long as 10 years. By that time, you'll have many years of on-time payments from your other cards, and the loss of this one card won't be significant. Because the card has a low credit limit, it won't have much effect on your credit utilization numbers, either. Finally, your credit score might just be high enough that a small drop will have no impact on your financial life whatsoever. In my opinion, hanging onto a credit card you don't want just to try to attain some type of high score is pointless. Close the card."
},
{
"docid": "257483",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\""
},
{
"docid": "336468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\""
},
{
"docid": "507983",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:"
},
{
"docid": "228871",
"title": "",
"text": "Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons. Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage."
},
{
"docid": "304009",
"title": "",
"text": "credit cards are almost never closed for inactivity. i have had dozens of cards innactive for years on end, and only one was ever closed on me for inactivity. i would bet a single 1$ transaction per calendar year would keep all your cards open. as such, you could forget automating the process and just spend 20 minutes a year making manual 1$ payments (e.g. to your isp, utility company, google play, etc.). alternatively, many charities will let you set up an automatic monthly donation for any amount (e.g. 1$ to wikipedia). or perhaps you could treat yourself to an mp3 once a month (arguably a charitable donation in the age of file sharing). side note: i use both of these strategies to get the 12 debit card transactions per month required by my kasasa checking account."
},
{
"docid": "118557",
"title": "",
"text": "See the accepted answer for this question. What effect will credit card churning for frequent flyer miles have on my credit score? This does not directly answer 'how often...' that you asked, but it states that the answerer opens 5-15 accounts per year. So the answer to your question is, as often as you want, as long as you manage your account ages. The reason for this is that there are two factors in opening a new account that affect your credit card score. One is average age of accounts. The other is credit inquiries. That answerer, with FICO in high 700s, sees about a 5% swing based on new cards and closing old ones. You'll have to manage average age of accounts. I assume this is done by keeping some older ones open to prop up the average, and by judiciously closing the churn accounts. Finally, if you choose to engage in churning, and you intend to apply for a large loan and want a good credit score, simply pause the account open/close part of the churn a couple of months ahead of time. Your score should recover from the temporary hits of the inquiries. The churning communities really do have how to guides which discuss the details of this. Key phrase: credit card churning."
},
{
"docid": "28074",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\""
},
{
"docid": "591714",
"title": "",
"text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "235452",
"title": "",
"text": "There's no harm in keeping them open. Like you said, closing the lines will potentially hurt your utilization. The extent of that impact will depend on your particular situation. There are situations where closing a line will have no actual impact on your utilization. If you have 100k of open credit and a debt load of $2k, if you close a $10k line you won't really have an issue because your utilization is 2% and closing the line will take you to 2.2%."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "520205",
"title": "",
"text": "Patience is the key here, I hate to say! There are five factors to FICO credit scores: Payment history is adversely affected by late payments - so always pay on time, otherwise your report will be haunted for seven years! 👻 Credit utilization has to do with how much of your available credit is currently in use - lower is better, but 0% isn't good either because they want to see that you're using credit. 10% or less is a good goal, and try to keep any single card balance to 30% or less when its statement close date rolls around. Credit history is based on the average age of all of your accounts, cards or otherwise, the older the better. Don't close either of your other cards (because that would cause your average account age to fall), and make sure to use the store card at least occasionally, because lenders sometimes decide to close unused lines of credit. Credit mix has to do with the different types of credit you hold and is why your bank's website suggested taking out a loan. It also has to do with the number of accounts overall; I've never found a satisfactory answer for what the sweet spot is, but I suspect it's in the 6-12 range? You wouldn't want to get several new ones at the same time because... New credit is affected by the credit inquiries (hard pulls) that occur when you apply for new cards or loans. Inquiries stay on your report for two years before falling off. This is almost certainly where your score dropped. You also mentioned not knowing if some hospital bills are still affecting your score. You'll want to review your credit reports and find out, plus checking your credit reports regularly is a really great habit to get into because errors (and fraud) can and do happen. There are three credit reporting agencies: Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, and you'll want to review all three. You can get one free report from each of them every year: https://www.usa.gov/credit-reports It can take a couple of months for a new credit account to show up on your credit report, so your score should recover and go even higher once that happens. Sit tight, as annoying as that is!"
},
{
"docid": "112154",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit is not free money. The idea is you will repay all of it, within a reasonable amount of time. It is abundantly clear you either don't really understand this concept or completely failed at planning for it. Or even at keeping up with how much you owe - you are curiously blaming the bank for letting you go over the limit. The reason most banks will authorize that for credit customers is they don't want to strand people in some sort of an emergency situation. I'd recommend you cut back on your spending and work on paying the balance down. If you have been charged any over the limit fees you can attempt to negotiate getting those credited. Most banks will compromise on that the first time. I don't really recommend it, but if there are some circumstances surrounding this that are temporary and you are very confident about being able to manage money better in the future - chances are you might be able to get approved for another card. If you otherwise have had some good credit history and this situation is very recent, it may not even show up on your credit report yet and another bank might happily approve you. They may even offer a low or zero interest (for some time) balance transfer deal, which you should use to get the other card within the limit. If that ends up working, it's very important that you keep in mind having dodged the bullet once doesn't mean you will ever be able to do it again. Get your budget in order and pay things off."
},
{
"docid": "584419",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bank of America has been selling off their local branches to smaller banks in recent years. Here are a few news stories related to this: Along with the branch buildings, the local customers' savings and checking accounts are sold to the new bank. It is interesting that you were told that your savings account is being sold, but that your checking account will remain with BofA. I guess it depends on the terms of the particular sale. Here are your options, as I see it: Let the savings account move to the new bank, and see what the new terms are like. You might actually like the new bank. If you don't, you can shop around and close your account at the new bank after it has been created. Close your account now, before the move. If you have a different bank you'd like to move to, there is no need to wait. Since your checking account is apparently staying with BofA, you could move all your money from your savings account to your checking account, closing your savings account. Then after \"\"mid August\"\" when the local branch switches to the new bank and everyone else's savings account has moved, you can call up BofA and tell them you want to move some of the money from your checking account into a new savings account. If you really have your heart set on staying with BofA, option 3 looks like a good, easy choice. To address your other concerns: Bank of America is a big credit card company, so I doubt that your credit card is being sold off. Your credit card account should stay as-is. Even if your savings account and checking account are at a different bank, there is no need to switch credit cards. Your savings and checking accounts have nothing to do with your credit report or score, so there is no concern there. If you end up wanting to switch to a new credit card with a different bank, there are minor hits to your credit score involved with applying for a new card and closing your current card, but if I were you I would not worry about your credit score in this. Switch credit cards if you want a change, and keep your credit card if you don't.\""
},
{
"docid": "219181",
"title": "",
"text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month."
},
{
"docid": "481822",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."
},
{
"docid": "533621",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Credit scores are not such a big deal in Canada as they are in the US and even some European countries. One reason for this: the Social Insurance Number (SIN number) isn't used for so many purposes like the Social Security Number (SSN) in the US. The SIN number isn't even required to get credit (but with some exceptions it is needed to open an interest-bearing savings account, so that the interest income can be reported). You can refuse to provide the SIN number to most private companies. Canada also has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates of any large country, so new arrivals are expected, and services are geared up for them. Most of the banks offer special deals for \"\"New Canadians\"\". You should get a credit card (even if just a secured credit card) through them with one of these offers to start a credit file anyway, but there's no need to actually use it much. Auto-paying a utility bill through the card, and paying it off in full each month, is one way to keep it active. No need to ever pay any interest. Most major apartment rental firms will expect a good proportion of their renters to be new to Canada, so should have procedures in place to deal with it (such as a higher deposit). You should not give them your SIN for a credit check, even when you're more established. Same for utilities, they can just charge a higher deposit if they can't credit check you. For private landlords, everything is negotiable (but see the laws link at the end of this answer). You will later need a credit rating for a mortgage on a house (if not paying cash), so it's worth getting that one token credit card. Useful for car rental also. Here's a fairly complete summary of the laws on renting in Canada, which includes the maximum deposits that can be asked for, and notice periods.\""
},
{
"docid": "391384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "143596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "490100",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The preferred accounts are designed to hope you do one of several things: Pay one day late. Then charge you all the deferred interest. Many people think If they put $X a month aside, then pay just before the 6 months, 12 moths or no-payment before 2014 period ends then I will be able to afford the computer, carpet, or furniture. The interest rate they will charge you if you are late will be buried in the fine print. But expect it to be very high. Pay on time, but now that you have a card with their logo on it. So now you feel that you should buy the accessories from them. They hope that you become a long time customer. They want to make money on your next computer also. Their \"\"Bill Me Later\"\" option on that site as essentially the same as the preferred account. In the end you will have another line of credit. They will do a credit check. The impact, both positive and negative, on your credit picture is discussed in other questions. Because two of the three options you mentioned in your question (cash, debit card) imply that you have enough cash to buy the computer today, there is no reason to get another credit card to finance the purchase. The delayed payment with the preferred account, will save you about 10 dollars (2000 * 1% interest * 0.5 years). The choice of store might save you more money, though with Apple there are fewer places to get legitimate discounts. Here are your options: How to get the limit increased: You can ask for a temporary increase in the credit limit, or you can ask for a permanent one. Some credit cards can do this online, others require you to talk to them. If they are going to agree to this, it can be done in a few minutes. Some individuals on this site have even been able to send the check to the credit card company before completing the purchase, thus \"\"increasing\"\" their credit limit. YMMV. I have no idea if it works. A good reason to use the existing credit card, instead of the debit card is if the credit card is a rewards card. The extra money or points can be very nice. Just make sure you pay it back before the bill is due. In fact you can send the money to the credit card company the same day the computer arrives in the mail. Having the transaction on the credit card can also get you purchase protection, and some cards automatically extend the warranty.\""
},
{
"docid": "188028",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account:** It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "352451",
"title": "",
"text": "I never give advice but I will now because you are getting poor advice. I run between 820 and 835 for a FICO score and have for years. I have a Discover, AMEX, VISA and MC. I have over 200,000 dollars of credit and I never EVER pay interest. I pay off the cards every month. So, does it matter how much credit you have or can you have too much? NO! Bank of America gave me 40,000 dollars credit and I don't even have an account with them except the card. Banks like people who pay their bills on time. Well, the computers at the banks do. LOL...DON'T be afraid of asking for more credit. Your score may drop for two months but that is it. Good luck with your money"
},
{
"docid": "228871",
"title": "",
"text": "Please realize that your issuer can close the account for any number of reasons. Inactivity is one, as having a credit line open costs them money and if you never charge anything, the company doesn't get any transaction fees from vendors nor does the company get to charge you any interest. An occasional charge is likely to keep your card from being closed automatically, but it is not a guarantee. Another reason they may close the account is that you have other bad marks show up on your credit score, or their criteria for offering you the card change so you no longer match their target demographic. I have a credit card issued by my credit union that I have not used for a couple of years. They will not close the card account because my other accounts are still very profitable for them. If I were not an otherwise profitable customer, I wouldn't be surprised if they closed my credit card account. If you are serious about keeping the account open, you should probably have more than a trivial amount of usage."
},
{
"docid": "102823",
"title": "",
"text": ">Hate to break it to you but it's the republican policies of deregulation and tax cuts we can't afford that got us this shit sandwich. Not even close. 1.1Trillion/year deficit is NOT related to taxes, it's related to increased spending while yes, tax revenues fall a bit. But you don't take actions that will make tax revenues fall more. Putting additional burdens on companies doesnt yield more tax revenue. If it did, why not tax them at 90%? But then guess what happens along that chart curve? There are no companies left. How much in additional taxes could we take in? 100 billion conservatively? Ok genius, what about the other $1 Trillion/year? WE SPEND TOO MUCH! >Really? Seems to me like a person living paycheck to paycheck would actually have a very good idea of what it's like to live on the edge of bankruptcy Except for most people close to bankruptcy they never had any capital to begin with. They lived pay check to pay check, using credit cards, buying houses, buying cars. Businesses must keep a MUCH larger cushion of liquid capital and assets and must plan YEARS in advance. ---very few individuals do this or ever will. The only correlation is that more and more liabilities are not meeting income. Except when an individual goes bankrupt it's mostly on them. If a company goes bankrupt it can effect hundreds or thousands of employees AND the company. An indivdual going bankrupt won't then bankrupt their creditors or vendors but a company going bankrupt very well could. I don't know if you knew this, but the United States itself is bankrupt.... We can't meet liabilities with the current income. That doesn't mean increased taxes to increase income. It means reducing liabilities and creating an envionment where those who bring in the revenue can expand. What we're talking about here is companies receiving additional burdens, not less, thus there is an incentive to decrease liabilities where possible, sell or close if necessary."
},
{
"docid": "61968",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on your definition of \"\"inactive\"\". If you have credit cards open and do not use them at all for a period of time, some lenders will not update your usage to the credit bureaus while some will close your account in which will definitely hurt your credit score. But since you use your card once in a while and pay them off, you should be good. Lenders like to see some activity rather than no activity. If there are great offers out there by credit card companies, then why not take advantage of them? The only downside may be the annual fees if there is any but with your credit score, it implies you are financially responsible so there should be no 'compelling financial reason' to not open more cards. In fact, the number of credit accounts you have open can play a role on your score. Essentially the more the better. According to Credit Karma, 0-5 credit accounts is very poor, 6-10 is poor, 11-20 is good, 21+ is excellent.\""
},
{
"docid": "299819",
"title": "",
"text": "How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea."
},
{
"docid": "296165",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming the question is \"\"will they close it for inactivity (alone)\"\".. the answer is \"\"Nope\"\" ... unequivocally. Update: < My answer is geared to credit Cards issues by companies that deal in credit, not merchandise (i.e. store cards, retailer cards, etc). Retailers (like Amazon, etc), want to sell goods and are in the credit card business to generate sales. Banks and credit companies (about whom I am referring) make their money primarily on interest and secondarily on service charges (either point of use charged to the vendor that accepts payment, or fees charged to the user).> The only major issuer I will say that it might be possible is Discover, because I never kept a Discover card. I also don't keep department store cards, which might possibly do this; but I do doubt it in either of those cases too. My answer is based on Having 2 AMEX cards (Optima and Blue) and multiple other Visa/MC's that I NEVER use... and most of these I have not for over 10+ years. Since I am also presuming that you are also not talking about an account that charges a yearly or other maintenance fee.. Why would they keep the account open with the overhead (statements and other mailings,etc)? Because you MIGHT use it. You MIGHT not be able to pay it off each month. Because you MIGHT end up paying thousands in interest over many years. The pennies they pay for maintaining your account and sending you new cards with chip technology, etc.. are all worth the gamble of getting recouped from you! This is why sales people waste their time with lots of people who will not buy their product, even though it costs them time and money to prospect.. because they MIGHT buy. Naturally, there are a multitude of reasons for canceling a card; but inactivity is not one. I have no less than 10+ \"\"inactive\"\" cards, one that has a balance, and two I use \"\"infrequently\"\". I really would not mind if they closed all those accounts.. but they won't ;) So enjoy your AMEX knowing that your Visa will be there when you need/want it.. The bank that issues your Visa is banking on it! (presuming you don't foul up financially) Cheers!\""
},
{
"docid": "14731",
"title": "",
"text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)"
},
{
"docid": "99449",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to close the card, close it. The impact on your credit score will be minimal, if any, and the impact on your life will likely be even less. First, as you noted, the history from your card does not disappear when you close the card; it will stay on your credit report for as long as 10 years. By that time, you'll have many years of on-time payments from your other cards, and the loss of this one card won't be significant. Because the card has a low credit limit, it won't have much effect on your credit utilization numbers, either. Finally, your credit score might just be high enough that a small drop will have no impact on your financial life whatsoever. In my opinion, hanging onto a credit card you don't want just to try to attain some type of high score is pointless. Close the card."
},
{
"docid": "51959",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would not call this a \"\"good\"\" idea. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea either. Before you even consider it, you need to do a little bit of soul searching. If there is ANY chance that having multiple credit cards could entice you to spend more than you otherwise would, then this is definitely a bad idea. Avoiding temptation is the key to preventing regrettable actions (in all aspects of life). Psychoanalysis aside, let's take a mathematical approach to the question. I believe your conclusion is correct if you add some qualifiers to it: A few years from now, then your credit score will probably be higher than if you just had 1 credit card. Here are some other things to consider: And, saving the best for last: As for the hard inquiries, they should only have an effect on your credit score for 1 year (though they can be seen on your report for 2 years). Final thought: if you decide to do this (and I personally don't recommend it), I would keep the number of applications smaller (3-5 instead of 10-15). I also would only choose cards that have no annual fee. Try to choose 1 card that has 1-2% cash back and make that your regular card.\""
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "170204",
"title": "",
"text": "Assuming that a person has good financial discipline and is generally responsible with spending, I think that having a few hundred or thousand dollars extra of available credit is usually worth more to that person for the choice/flexibility it provides in unforeseen circumstance, versus the relatively minor hit that could be taken to their credit score."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "353980",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\""
},
{
"docid": "352451",
"title": "",
"text": "I never give advice but I will now because you are getting poor advice. I run between 820 and 835 for a FICO score and have for years. I have a Discover, AMEX, VISA and MC. I have over 200,000 dollars of credit and I never EVER pay interest. I pay off the cards every month. So, does it matter how much credit you have or can you have too much? NO! Bank of America gave me 40,000 dollars credit and I don't even have an account with them except the card. Banks like people who pay their bills on time. Well, the computers at the banks do. LOL...DON'T be afraid of asking for more credit. Your score may drop for two months but that is it. Good luck with your money"
},
{
"docid": "423569",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't worry about his credit score. The hit from a credit inquiry is not that big and it's absolutely worth it in the long run. I suggest you sign him up for a free budgeting app (just google budgeting app) that will help him not only take control of his spending but also help him with his loans. Transferring debt comes with a few caveats: His credit score is bad so I don't know if he'll be able to get 0% loan, but even if he gets 6% - 8% that will save him money; just don't forget about the transfer fee. If he has checking/savings account it's worth talking to that bank first - they might be able to give him a better deal for being their customer. Also if he tells them his story and credit score they might be able to give him an idea what they can offer him without doing a credit check. Another option is to become a member of a local credit union - they have great rates on loans / credit cards. Credit card or personal loan doesn't matter much, whatever he can get. With his credit score I doubt he'll be able to get a good rate at Chase or one of the other big credit card companies. Good luck."
},
{
"docid": "299819",
"title": "",
"text": "How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea."
},
{
"docid": "442784",
"title": "",
"text": "Now, what if I were to spend the entire $2,000 limit on a single purchase? I've been saving up in anticipation of this purchase and therefore have the money already set aside in the bank, so I could pay off the entire $2k immediately. There is no problem with doing this. There's a bit of a time delay in credit reporting, so if you pay immediately in the middle of your statement period it will never even be reported that your card was maxed out. Make the purchase some time in the middle of the billing period, then log in to your account and pay the total before the statement period closes. If you let it roll to the next statement period, it will be reported that your account is maxed out, and possibly, you will be charged interest and potentially a fee for exceeding your limit. Your utilization is only calculated in a snapshot, there is no history kept. Even if you let your card be reported at 100% utilization, you could pay the balance that month with 0% then reported and your score will bounce back as though nothing ever happened. Separately, if you have had this card for a long while you may want to request a credit line increase."
},
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "69938",
"title": "",
"text": "If your credit is good, you should immediately attempt to refinance your high rate credit cards by transferring the balance to credit cards with lower interest rates.You might want to check at your local credit union, credit unions can offer great rates. Use the $4000 to pay off whatever is left on the high rate cards. If your credit is bad, I suggest you call your credit card company and try to negotiate with them. If they consider you a risk they might settle your account for fraction of what you own if you can send payment immediately. Don't tell them you have money, just tell them your are trying to get your finances under control and see what they can offer you. This will damage your credit score but will get you out of depth much sooner and save you money in the long term. Also keep in mind that if they do settle, they'll close your account. That way, you leverage the $4000 and use it as a tool to get concessions from the bank."
},
{
"docid": "68431",
"title": "",
"text": "Buy a car. Vehicle loans, like mortgages, are installment loans. Credit cards are revolving lines of credit. In the US, your credit score factors in the different types of credit you have. Note that there are several methods for calculating credit scores, including multiple types of FICO scores. You could buy a car and drive for Uber to help cash flow the car payments and/or save for your next purchase. As others have suggested, you should be very careful with debt and ask critical questions before taking it on. Swiping a credit card is more about your behavior and self-control than it is logic and math. And if you ever want to start a business or make multi-million dollar purchases (e.g. real estate), or do a lot of other things, you'll need good credit."
},
{
"docid": "562993",
"title": "",
"text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "28074",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\""
},
{
"docid": "219181",
"title": "",
"text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month."
},
{
"docid": "336468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\""
},
{
"docid": "286843",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way."
},
{
"docid": "241140",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How does adding a revenue stream from the most profitable and widely penetrated products in existence read to you as \"\"shooting blind\"\"? Do you have any idea what interest rates on a card like this are? If you've ever worked retail, you know that credit card sign ups are a key metric nearly every employee is judged by\""
},
{
"docid": "391384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "584419",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bank of America has been selling off their local branches to smaller banks in recent years. Here are a few news stories related to this: Along with the branch buildings, the local customers' savings and checking accounts are sold to the new bank. It is interesting that you were told that your savings account is being sold, but that your checking account will remain with BofA. I guess it depends on the terms of the particular sale. Here are your options, as I see it: Let the savings account move to the new bank, and see what the new terms are like. You might actually like the new bank. If you don't, you can shop around and close your account at the new bank after it has been created. Close your account now, before the move. If you have a different bank you'd like to move to, there is no need to wait. Since your checking account is apparently staying with BofA, you could move all your money from your savings account to your checking account, closing your savings account. Then after \"\"mid August\"\" when the local branch switches to the new bank and everyone else's savings account has moved, you can call up BofA and tell them you want to move some of the money from your checking account into a new savings account. If you really have your heart set on staying with BofA, option 3 looks like a good, easy choice. To address your other concerns: Bank of America is a big credit card company, so I doubt that your credit card is being sold off. Your credit card account should stay as-is. Even if your savings account and checking account are at a different bank, there is no need to switch credit cards. Your savings and checking accounts have nothing to do with your credit report or score, so there is no concern there. If you end up wanting to switch to a new credit card with a different bank, there are minor hits to your credit score involved with applying for a new card and closing your current card, but if I were you I would not worry about your credit score in this. Switch credit cards if you want a change, and keep your credit card if you don't.\""
},
{
"docid": "312618",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two factors in your credit score that may be affected. The first is payment history. Lenders like to see that you pay your bills, which is the most straightforward part of credit scores IMO. If you've actually been paying your bills on time, though, then this should still be fine. The second factor is the average age of your open accounts. Longer is considered better here because it means you have a history of paying your bills, and you aren't applying for a bunch of credit recently (in which case you may be taking on too much and will have difficulties paying them). If this card is closed, then it will no longer count for this calculation. If you don't have any other open credit accounts, then that means as soon as you open another one, your average age will be one day, and it will take a long time to get it to \"\"good\"\" levels; if you have other matured accounts, then those will balance out any new accounts so you don't get hit as much. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it's good to get cards without yearly fees, because you can keep them open for a long time even if you switch to using a different card primarily.\""
},
{
"docid": "297288",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\""
},
{
"docid": "400202",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you look around online and read about credit scores, you'll find all kinds of information about what you should do to maximize your credit score. However, in my opinion, it just isn't worth rearranging your life just to try to achieve some arbitrary score. If you pay your bills on time and are regularly using a credit card, your score will take care of itself. Yes, you can cut up the card you don't like and keep the credit card account open. The bank may close your account at some point in the future because of a lack of activity, but if they do, don't worry about it. You have other accounts that you are using. Personally, I don't like having open credit accounts that I'm not using; I close accounts when I'm done with them. I realize that it goes against everything that you will read, but my score is very high and my oldest open credit card account is 2 years old. Don't let them scare you into credit activity that you don't want just to try to \"\"win\"\" at the credit score.\""
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "416679",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm not sure if someone else answered already in the same manner I will. I can't guarantee for sure if it's the same in the U.S.A. (it might since major credit cards companies like Visa/MC/AMEX are American companies) but in Canada having/keeping unused CC is a disadvantage because of the following: Banks and financing companies look more at the total amount of credit available to you than at how much purchases you have on your cards. Ex: Let's say that you have the following: - Visa cc with $10,000 limit and $2000 worth of purchases (made more than 30 days ago) on it. - Mastercard cc with $10,000 limit as well and $1000 worth of purchases (less than 30 days old) - A major retail store cc with $2000 limit and $0 balance. Hypothetical situation: You want a bank loan to do some expensive house repairs and are looking for a lower interest rate than what your cc can offer. The bank will not care about the amount on the cards. They will add-up all the limits of your cc and treat your loan request as if ALL your cards were filled to their respective limit. So in this case: they will consider you as being right now in debt of $10K+$10K+$2K = $22,000 instead of only $3000 and they might: 1. refuse you the loan 2. grant it only if you transfer all purchases on a single card and cancel all the others. 3. Once the $3000 is transferred on one of the cards (and the others cancelled), they can require that you reduce the limit of that card. Hope this helps!"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "111594",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit cards come with an interest-free grace period of ~25 days as long as you pay your balance in full every month. In other words, charges made in January will appear on a bill cut on Jan 31, and due around the 25th of February. If paid in full by 2/25, there's no interest. It is a very good idea to get in the habit of paying off your entire balance every month for this very reason. Don't buy anything you can't afford to pay for at the end of the month when the credit card bill is due. You'll avoid interest charges, build good habits, and improve your credit score. By just paying the minimum amount due, you'll be charged interest from the moment of purchase, and the grace period on new purchases goes away. Credit card companies make the minimum amount due relatively low as a way to encourage you to pay more and more in interest every month. Don't fall for it! Look for a credit card with zero annual fee. Sure, rewards are nice, but it's more important to avoid fees, keep the interest rate low, and get in the habit of paying in full every month, in which case the interest rate won't matter. Your bank or credit union is a good place to start looking."
},
{
"docid": "596081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I found a good article on cnnmoney.com that touches on this titled \"\"5 Ways to Destroy your Credit\"\". One of these \"\"ways\"\", it says, is closing your credit cards. The article cited one expert who says, Since part of your score is based on the length of time certain lines of credit have been open, closing out that 10-year old credit card could take a bite out of your credit score... It's negative because it's taking away a reference to a positive credit history.\""
},
{
"docid": "370496",
"title": "",
"text": "You have little chance of getting it deleted. I have the same situation, I closed mine in 2006, and the login still works. Keep the paperwork that you closed it (or print a PDF of the site showing so), and forget about it. If someone is trying to cheat, re-opening it should be the same difficulty as making a new one in your name, so it is not really an additional risk. You could also set the username and password both to a long random string, and not keep them. That soft-forces you to never login again. Note that it will also stay on your credit record for some years (but that's not a bad thing, as it is not in default; in the contrary). The only negative is that if you apply for credit, you might be ashamed of people seeing you ever having had a Sears or Macy's card or so."
},
{
"docid": "290714",
"title": "",
"text": "Pulling money out of a credit card is generally a bad idea. You'll be hit with interest from day 1, and some credit cards have cash advance fees on top of that. If you are really desperate for running up an automatic charge on your credit card to maintain use, then you have a few options: Personally, the charity route makes the most sense to me. You can probably set up an automatic donation of less than 5 quid, and it may be tax deductible to boot. Plus, you're helping an organization that (hopefully) is doing some good in the world."
},
{
"docid": "12247",
"title": "",
"text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available."
},
{
"docid": "353980",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\""
},
{
"docid": "562993",
"title": "",
"text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "143596",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your total debt is equal to your total non-credit debt (student loans, car loans) + your total available credit. This is the truth of the \"\"low balance\"\" fear from lenders that you had heard about. Your credit utilization is across all of your cards. So if you have two cards, both with 15K limits and one is maxed out and one is empty, that is 50% utilization. If you have both cards with 7.5K balances, that is also 50% utilization. For the 8 cards that are paid off and still open, after you buy a house, I'd close any cards you aren't using. Not everyone will agree with this. If possible, I would close the 8 cards now and pay off the 15K balance before buying a house. If it's hard to pay it off now, it will be harder when you have a mortgage and home maintenance costs. If you want to buy the house before you pay off all of your credit card debt, I'd still close the 8 cards that are already paid off and pay down your last card to 4K (or less) to get under 25% utilization. The credit rating bureaus do not publish exactly how a different utilization rate of credit will affect your score, but it is known that lower utilization will improve your score. FICO calls this \"\"Proportion of credit lines used (proportion of balances to total credit limits on certain types of revolving accounts)\"\" Also, the longevity of your credit history is based on type of account (credit cards, car loans, etc.) so if you keep one credit card open, you still keep your long \"\"history\"\" with credit cards on your credit report. FICO calls this \"\"Time since accounts opened, by specific type of account\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "336468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\""
},
{
"docid": "312618",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two factors in your credit score that may be affected. The first is payment history. Lenders like to see that you pay your bills, which is the most straightforward part of credit scores IMO. If you've actually been paying your bills on time, though, then this should still be fine. The second factor is the average age of your open accounts. Longer is considered better here because it means you have a history of paying your bills, and you aren't applying for a bunch of credit recently (in which case you may be taking on too much and will have difficulties paying them). If this card is closed, then it will no longer count for this calculation. If you don't have any other open credit accounts, then that means as soon as you open another one, your average age will be one day, and it will take a long time to get it to \"\"good\"\" levels; if you have other matured accounts, then those will balance out any new accounts so you don't get hit as much. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it's good to get cards without yearly fees, because you can keep them open for a long time even if you switch to using a different card primarily.\""
},
{
"docid": "14731",
"title": "",
"text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)"
},
{
"docid": "68431",
"title": "",
"text": "Buy a car. Vehicle loans, like mortgages, are installment loans. Credit cards are revolving lines of credit. In the US, your credit score factors in the different types of credit you have. Note that there are several methods for calculating credit scores, including multiple types of FICO scores. You could buy a car and drive for Uber to help cash flow the car payments and/or save for your next purchase. As others have suggested, you should be very careful with debt and ask critical questions before taking it on. Swiping a credit card is more about your behavior and self-control than it is logic and math. And if you ever want to start a business or make multi-million dollar purchases (e.g. real estate), or do a lot of other things, you'll need good credit."
},
{
"docid": "183774",
"title": "",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc."
},
{
"docid": "118557",
"title": "",
"text": "See the accepted answer for this question. What effect will credit card churning for frequent flyer miles have on my credit score? This does not directly answer 'how often...' that you asked, but it states that the answerer opens 5-15 accounts per year. So the answer to your question is, as often as you want, as long as you manage your account ages. The reason for this is that there are two factors in opening a new account that affect your credit card score. One is average age of accounts. The other is credit inquiries. That answerer, with FICO in high 700s, sees about a 5% swing based on new cards and closing old ones. You'll have to manage average age of accounts. I assume this is done by keeping some older ones open to prop up the average, and by judiciously closing the churn accounts. Finally, if you choose to engage in churning, and you intend to apply for a large loan and want a good credit score, simply pause the account open/close part of the churn a couple of months ahead of time. Your score should recover from the temporary hits of the inquiries. The churning communities really do have how to guides which discuss the details of this. Key phrase: credit card churning."
},
{
"docid": "584419",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Bank of America has been selling off their local branches to smaller banks in recent years. Here are a few news stories related to this: Along with the branch buildings, the local customers' savings and checking accounts are sold to the new bank. It is interesting that you were told that your savings account is being sold, but that your checking account will remain with BofA. I guess it depends on the terms of the particular sale. Here are your options, as I see it: Let the savings account move to the new bank, and see what the new terms are like. You might actually like the new bank. If you don't, you can shop around and close your account at the new bank after it has been created. Close your account now, before the move. If you have a different bank you'd like to move to, there is no need to wait. Since your checking account is apparently staying with BofA, you could move all your money from your savings account to your checking account, closing your savings account. Then after \"\"mid August\"\" when the local branch switches to the new bank and everyone else's savings account has moved, you can call up BofA and tell them you want to move some of the money from your checking account into a new savings account. If you really have your heart set on staying with BofA, option 3 looks like a good, easy choice. To address your other concerns: Bank of America is a big credit card company, so I doubt that your credit card is being sold off. Your credit card account should stay as-is. Even if your savings account and checking account are at a different bank, there is no need to switch credit cards. Your savings and checking accounts have nothing to do with your credit report or score, so there is no concern there. If you end up wanting to switch to a new credit card with a different bank, there are minor hits to your credit score involved with applying for a new card and closing your current card, but if I were you I would not worry about your credit score in this. Switch credit cards if you want a change, and keep your credit card if you don't.\""
},
{
"docid": "258465",
"title": "",
"text": "You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them. Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance."
},
{
"docid": "60817",
"title": "",
"text": "One more thing to favor the card. Extended warranty, or damage coverage. An iPad, if dropped on a hard surface, stands a good chance of breaking. Apple isn't going to cover that, as it's not a defect. Many credit cards offer free coverage for breakage of this type as well as doubling the warranty up to a year. This second year of coverage is worth about 10% of the item cost. To be clear, I'm talking about running the expense through a card and paying in full, some call it credit no different than those who carry a balance month to month and pay 18% interest. I believe if I have the money to spend on an item, and use the card to get that coverage along with the benefits others posted, it's a convenience, nothing more. Some people who use certain budgeting methods like to set up a payment each week so the bill comes in close to zero. Whatever works."
},
{
"docid": "233544",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a reason - your credit score. If you ever take out a mortgage, you might pay dearly for your behavior. The bank where you have the credit card reports the amount on the bill to the credit rating agencies. If you pay before the bill date, they will always report zero. You should wait at least till the day after the billing cycle ends, and then pay off (you don't need to have the paper bill in your hands - you can see online when the cycle closed). Depending on your other financial behavior, this will have between zero and significant effect, on the percentages you get offered for car loans, mortgages, etc."
},
{
"docid": "481822",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "334111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The only good reason I find to close cards are: it's a card with an annual fee that you don't need. No point bleeding money each year. churning rewards. Open card to get bonus promotion such as \"\"spend $500 in first 3 months, get $200 bonus\"\". Close card and open a year later to do that same bonus again if available. Many cards don't allow you to do this. making room for newer cards at the same bank. Example, you have 5 Chase Cards and you want to apply for a 6th. Chase says you have maximized your credit they will extend you. You close one of your existing cards to get that new card. I have seen that many banks allow you to shift over some over your existing available credit to your new card without having to close them.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "304009",
"title": "",
"text": "credit cards are almost never closed for inactivity. i have had dozens of cards innactive for years on end, and only one was ever closed on me for inactivity. i would bet a single 1$ transaction per calendar year would keep all your cards open. as such, you could forget automating the process and just spend 20 minutes a year making manual 1$ payments (e.g. to your isp, utility company, google play, etc.). alternatively, many charities will let you set up an automatic monthly donation for any amount (e.g. 1$ to wikipedia). or perhaps you could treat yourself to an mp3 once a month (arguably a charitable donation in the age of file sharing). side note: i use both of these strategies to get the 12 debit card transactions per month required by my kasasa checking account."
},
{
"docid": "257483",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\""
},
{
"docid": "60817",
"title": "",
"text": "One more thing to favor the card. Extended warranty, or damage coverage. An iPad, if dropped on a hard surface, stands a good chance of breaking. Apple isn't going to cover that, as it's not a defect. Many credit cards offer free coverage for breakage of this type as well as doubling the warranty up to a year. This second year of coverage is worth about 10% of the item cost. To be clear, I'm talking about running the expense through a card and paying in full, some call it credit no different than those who carry a balance month to month and pay 18% interest. I believe if I have the money to spend on an item, and use the card to get that coverage along with the benefits others posted, it's a convenience, nothing more. Some people who use certain budgeting methods like to set up a payment each week so the bill comes in close to zero. Whatever works."
},
{
"docid": "482932",
"title": "",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)"
},
{
"docid": "299840",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are correct. Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction. But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash. The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee. That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct. They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it. Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can. These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as \"\"good\"\" ways to build up your credit. Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less. However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part. Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies. A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions. (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself.\""
},
{
"docid": "170141",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two fundamentally different reasons merchants will give cash discounts. One is that they will not have to pay interchange fees on cash (or pay much lower fees on no-reward debit cards). Gas stations in my home state of NJ already universally offer different cash and credit prices. Costco will not even take Visa and MasterCard credit cards (debit only) for this reason. The second reason, not often talked about but widely known amongst smaller merchants, is that they can fail to declare the sale (or claim a smaller portion of the sale) to the authorities in order to reduce their tax liability. Obviously the larger stores will not risk their jobs for this, but smaller owner-operated (\"\"mom and pop\"\") stores often will. This applies to both reduced sales tax liability and income tax liability. This used to be more limited per sale (but more widespread overall), since tax authorities would look closely for a mismatch between declared income and spending, but with an ever-larger proportion of customers paying by credit card, merchants can take a bigger chunk of their cash sales off the books without drawing too much suspicion. Both of the above are more applicable to TVs than cars, since (1) car salesmen make substantial money from offering financing and (2) all cars must be registered with the state, so alternative records of sales abound. Also, car prices tend to be at or near the credit limit of most cards, so it is not as common to pay for them in this way.\""
},
{
"docid": "183660",
"title": "",
"text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account."
},
{
"docid": "353980",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\""
},
{
"docid": "520205",
"title": "",
"text": "Patience is the key here, I hate to say! There are five factors to FICO credit scores: Payment history is adversely affected by late payments - so always pay on time, otherwise your report will be haunted for seven years! 👻 Credit utilization has to do with how much of your available credit is currently in use - lower is better, but 0% isn't good either because they want to see that you're using credit. 10% or less is a good goal, and try to keep any single card balance to 30% or less when its statement close date rolls around. Credit history is based on the average age of all of your accounts, cards or otherwise, the older the better. Don't close either of your other cards (because that would cause your average account age to fall), and make sure to use the store card at least occasionally, because lenders sometimes decide to close unused lines of credit. Credit mix has to do with the different types of credit you hold and is why your bank's website suggested taking out a loan. It also has to do with the number of accounts overall; I've never found a satisfactory answer for what the sweet spot is, but I suspect it's in the 6-12 range? You wouldn't want to get several new ones at the same time because... New credit is affected by the credit inquiries (hard pulls) that occur when you apply for new cards or loans. Inquiries stay on your report for two years before falling off. This is almost certainly where your score dropped. You also mentioned not knowing if some hospital bills are still affecting your score. You'll want to review your credit reports and find out, plus checking your credit reports regularly is a really great habit to get into because errors (and fraud) can and do happen. There are three credit reporting agencies: Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion, and you'll want to review all three. You can get one free report from each of them every year: https://www.usa.gov/credit-reports It can take a couple of months for a new credit account to show up on your credit report, so your score should recover and go even higher once that happens. Sit tight, as annoying as that is!"
},
{
"docid": "290714",
"title": "",
"text": "Pulling money out of a credit card is generally a bad idea. You'll be hit with interest from day 1, and some credit cards have cash advance fees on top of that. If you are really desperate for running up an automatic charge on your credit card to maintain use, then you have a few options: Personally, the charity route makes the most sense to me. You can probably set up an automatic donation of less than 5 quid, and it may be tax deductible to boot. Plus, you're helping an organization that (hopefully) is doing some good in the world."
},
{
"docid": "335859",
"title": "",
"text": "As has been stated, you don't need to actively bank with a credit union to apply for one of their credit cards. That said, one benefit to having account activity, and significant capital with a CU, is to increase the likelihood of having a larger credit line granted to you, when you do apply. If you are going to use the card sparingly however, then this is a non issue. That said, if you really want to maximize card benefits, then you want to look for cards with large sign up bonuses (e.g. Chase Sapphire, or Ink Bold if you have a business) and sign up exclusively for those bonuses. These cards offer rewards in excessive value of $1000 in travel services (hotels/plane tickets), or $500 cash back if you prefer straight cash back redemptions. If you prefer to keep it really simple, you can sign up for a cash back card, like the Amex Fidelity, which offers 2% cash back everywhere, with no annual fee (albeit the cash back is through their investment account, which you don't actually have to 'invest' with). Personally, I have the Penfed card, and use it exclusively for gas (5% cash back). I also have a Charles Schwab bank account, which I keep funded exclusively for ATM withdrawals (free ATM usage, worldwide, 100% fee reimbursement). I use the accounts exclusively for the benefit they provide me, and no more and have never had an issue. I also have 3 dozen other credit cards which I signed up for exclusively for the sign up bonus, but that's outside the scope of this question. I only mention it because you seem to believe it is difficult to get approved for a new credit line. If your credit is good however, you won't have a problem. For a small idea, of how to maximize credit card bonus categories, I would advise you read this. As mentioned in the article, its possible to get rewards almost everywhere you shop. In short, anytime you use cash, you are missing out on a multitude of benefits a credit card offers you (e.g. see the benefits of a visa signature card) in addition to points/cash back."
},
{
"docid": "114494",
"title": "",
"text": "I would try to avoid mixing business expenditure with personal expenditure so a second credit card might be a good idea. That said, I did get a business credit card for my company in the UK as I didn't want to be personally liable for the money that was spent on the business card (even though I owned 100% of the business) in case things went horribly wrong. As I didn't fancy signing a personal guarantee, this meant that the limit was quite low but it was good enough in most cases."
},
{
"docid": "14731",
"title": "",
"text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)"
},
{
"docid": "336468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\""
},
{
"docid": "183774",
"title": "",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc."
},
{
"docid": "308131",
"title": "",
"text": "1- To max out rewards. I have 5 different credit cards, one gives me 5% back on gas, another on groceries, another on Amazon, another at restaurants and another 2% on everything else. If I had only one card, I would be missing out on a lot of rewards. Of course, you have to remember to use the right card for the right purchase. 2- To increase your credit limit. One card can give you a credit limit of $5,000, but if you have 4 of them with the same limits, you have increased your purchasing power to $20,000. This helps improve your credit score. Of course, it's never a good idea to owe $20,000 in credit card debt."
},
{
"docid": "51959",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would not call this a \"\"good\"\" idea. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea either. Before you even consider it, you need to do a little bit of soul searching. If there is ANY chance that having multiple credit cards could entice you to spend more than you otherwise would, then this is definitely a bad idea. Avoiding temptation is the key to preventing regrettable actions (in all aspects of life). Psychoanalysis aside, let's take a mathematical approach to the question. I believe your conclusion is correct if you add some qualifiers to it: A few years from now, then your credit score will probably be higher than if you just had 1 credit card. Here are some other things to consider: And, saving the best for last: As for the hard inquiries, they should only have an effect on your credit score for 1 year (though they can be seen on your report for 2 years). Final thought: if you decide to do this (and I personally don't recommend it), I would keep the number of applications smaller (3-5 instead of 10-15). I also would only choose cards that have no annual fee. Try to choose 1 card that has 1-2% cash back and make that your regular card.\""
},
{
"docid": "286843",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way."
},
{
"docid": "423816",
"title": "",
"text": "Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "2460",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit scoring has changed recently and the answer to this question will have slightly changed. While most points made here are true: But now (as of July 2017) it is possible having a large available credit balance can negatively effect your credit score directly: ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "218709",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying up in full before the statement is posted does not seem a good idea. I feel you should keep some small amount to be posted as a statement balance and pay that in full each month. If you keep your statements as always 0 will give creditors an impression that you have cards and you don't utilize them, so they cant really gauge how you preform being debt, whether you are able to manage your debt well etc. I always keep <100 dollar in every credit card I have to be posted a statement balance. I have >100k credit line over 3 cards. So if I take air ticket to SE Asia runs into 3000$ for my family, I pay 2900.00 a day before statement generates and keep 100 for statement to be posted. pay 100 the next day or as auto debit. This way you have some utilization + lower credit card outstanding at any point make your utilization right in single digits."
},
{
"docid": "286843",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way."
},
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "69938",
"title": "",
"text": "If your credit is good, you should immediately attempt to refinance your high rate credit cards by transferring the balance to credit cards with lower interest rates.You might want to check at your local credit union, credit unions can offer great rates. Use the $4000 to pay off whatever is left on the high rate cards. If your credit is bad, I suggest you call your credit card company and try to negotiate with them. If they consider you a risk they might settle your account for fraction of what you own if you can send payment immediately. Don't tell them you have money, just tell them your are trying to get your finances under control and see what they can offer you. This will damage your credit score but will get you out of depth much sooner and save you money in the long term. Also keep in mind that if they do settle, they'll close your account. That way, you leverage the $4000 and use it as a tool to get concessions from the bank."
},
{
"docid": "12247",
"title": "",
"text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available."
},
{
"docid": "591714",
"title": "",
"text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer."
},
{
"docid": "99449",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to close the card, close it. The impact on your credit score will be minimal, if any, and the impact on your life will likely be even less. First, as you noted, the history from your card does not disappear when you close the card; it will stay on your credit report for as long as 10 years. By that time, you'll have many years of on-time payments from your other cards, and the loss of this one card won't be significant. Because the card has a low credit limit, it won't have much effect on your credit utilization numbers, either. Finally, your credit score might just be high enough that a small drop will have no impact on your financial life whatsoever. In my opinion, hanging onto a credit card you don't want just to try to attain some type of high score is pointless. Close the card."
},
{
"docid": "304009",
"title": "",
"text": "credit cards are almost never closed for inactivity. i have had dozens of cards innactive for years on end, and only one was ever closed on me for inactivity. i would bet a single 1$ transaction per calendar year would keep all your cards open. as such, you could forget automating the process and just spend 20 minutes a year making manual 1$ payments (e.g. to your isp, utility company, google play, etc.). alternatively, many charities will let you set up an automatic monthly donation for any amount (e.g. 1$ to wikipedia). or perhaps you could treat yourself to an mp3 once a month (arguably a charitable donation in the age of file sharing). side note: i use both of these strategies to get the 12 debit card transactions per month required by my kasasa checking account."
},
{
"docid": "233544",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a reason - your credit score. If you ever take out a mortgage, you might pay dearly for your behavior. The bank where you have the credit card reports the amount on the bill to the credit rating agencies. If you pay before the bill date, they will always report zero. You should wait at least till the day after the billing cycle ends, and then pay off (you don't need to have the paper bill in your hands - you can see online when the cycle closed). Depending on your other financial behavior, this will have between zero and significant effect, on the percentages you get offered for car loans, mortgages, etc."
},
{
"docid": "481822",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."
},
{
"docid": "521987",
"title": "",
"text": "Congratulations on seeing your situation clearly! That's half the battle. To prevent yourself from going back into debt, you should get rid of any credit cards you have and close the accounts. Just use your debit card. Your post indicates you're not the type to splurge and get stuff just because you want it, so saving for a larger purchase and paying cash for it is probably something you're willing to do. Contrary to popular belief, you can live just fine without a credit card and without a credit score. If you're never going back into debt, you don't need a credit score. Buying a house is possible without one, but is admittedly more work for you and for the underwriters because they can't just ask the FICO god to bless you -- they have to actually see your finances, and you have to actually have some. (I realize many folks will hate this advice, but I am actually living it, and life is pretty good.) If you're in school, look at how much you spend on food while on campus. $5-$10/day for lunch adds up to $100-$200 over a month (M-F, four weeks). Buy groceries and pack a lunch if you can. If your expenses cannot be reduced anymore, you're going to have to get a job. There is nothing wrong with slowing down your studies and working a job to get your income up above your expenses. It stinks being a poor student, but it stinks even more to be a poor student with a mountain of debt. You'll find that working a job doesn't slow you down all that much. Tons of students work their way through school and graduate in plenty of time to get a good job. Good luck to you! You can do it."
},
{
"docid": "114494",
"title": "",
"text": "I would try to avoid mixing business expenditure with personal expenditure so a second credit card might be a good idea. That said, I did get a business credit card for my company in the UK as I didn't want to be personally liable for the money that was spent on the business card (even though I owned 100% of the business) in case things went horribly wrong. As I didn't fancy signing a personal guarantee, this meant that the limit was quite low but it was good enough in most cases."
},
{
"docid": "464296",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit Score is rather misleading, each provider of credit uses their own system to decide if they wish to lend to you. They will also not tell you how the combine all the factoring together. Closing unused account is good, as it reduced the risk of identity theft and you have less paperwork to deal with. It looks good if a company that knows you will agrees to give you more credit, as clearly they think you are a good risk. Having more total credit allowed on account is bad, as you may use it and not be able to pay all your bills. Using all your credit is bad, as it looks like you are not in control. Using a “pay day lender” is VERY bad, as only people that are out of control do so. Credit cards should be used for short term credit paying them off in full most months, but it is OK to take advantage of some interest free credit."
},
{
"docid": "28074",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\""
},
{
"docid": "486376",
"title": "",
"text": "Good question. I have no idea what legal recourse they have to reverse gift and credit card purchases. Cash people are probably safe. Like I said, it's unlikely they will do anything, but I would not be holding on to gift cards purchased via gift cards if it was my money on the line."
},
{
"docid": "257483",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\""
},
{
"docid": "256921",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the other question, the OP had posted a screenshot (circa 2010) from Transunion with suggestions on how to improve the OP's credit score. One of these suggestions was to obtain \"\"retail revolving accounts.\"\" By this, they are referring to credit accounts from a particular retail store. Stores have been offering credit accounts for many years, and today, this usually takes the form of a store credit card. The credit card does not have the Visa or MasterCard logo on it, and is only valid at that particular store. (For example, Target has their own credit card that only works at Target stores.) The \"\"revolving\"\" part simply means that it is an open account that you can continue to make new charges and pay off, as opposed to a fixed retail financing loan (such as you might get at a high-end furniture store, where you obtain a loan for a single piece of furniture, and when it is paid off, the account is closed). The formula for credit scores are proprietary secrets. However, I haven't read anything that indicates that a store credit card helps your credit score more than a standard credit card. I suspect that Transunion was offering this tip in an attempt to give the consumer more ideas of how to add credit cards to their account that the consumer might not have thought of. But it is possible that buried deep in the credit score formula, there is something in there that gives you a higher score if you have a store credit card. As an aside, the OP in the other question had a credit score of 766 and was trying to make it higher. In my opinion, this is pointless. Remember that the financial services industry has an incentive to sell you as much debt as possible, and so all of their advice will point to you getting more credit accounts and getting more in debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "562993",
"title": "",
"text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "305954",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no way to stop any merchant from setting a recurring charge flag on a purchase. According to the following article, Mastercard and Visa encourages merchants to use this feature and even give them a better rate. I have found it impossible to stop these unauthorized transactions. The article sites that the merchant is allowed to march the charges across expired cards to find a good card that you might have as well as the article states they can cross banks to find you if you have the same type of card. Virtual account numbers will not protect you. Sorry but the only solution I have found is to close the account with the bank and move to a different type of card, mastercard to visa, or vice versa. This will only protect you for one move ,because if you have to do this again. Merchants that you thought were forgotten even years later will find you and post a charge legally. Virtual numbers from Mastercard or Visa won't stop them. I believe this is the number one reason for credit card fraud for consumers. There is no reason for a merchant to let anyone off the hook when the credit card company will side with them. The article below does state that Mastercard does have a \"\"stop recurring payment\"\" flag. Apparently no CSR tht I have talked to knows about it when I have asked to get a problem fixed. I have found that the only way to stop these charges from happening is to close all my visa and mastercard credit cards, pay with a check that you write and mail or a PayPal one time payment that is sent to pay for an invoice. Recurring Credit-Card Charges May Irk Consumers\""
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "368806",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'd say close them if they have fees, if you're worried about fraud or if you're going to be tempted to use them. It may have an affect on your credit rating, but it shouldn't hurt you seriously. Having too many cards gives you the \"\"opportunity\"\" to overspend, which obviously isn't good.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "507983",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:"
},
{
"docid": "12247",
"title": "",
"text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available."
},
{
"docid": "258465",
"title": "",
"text": "You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them. Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance."
},
{
"docid": "481822",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."
},
{
"docid": "118557",
"title": "",
"text": "See the accepted answer for this question. What effect will credit card churning for frequent flyer miles have on my credit score? This does not directly answer 'how often...' that you asked, but it states that the answerer opens 5-15 accounts per year. So the answer to your question is, as often as you want, as long as you manage your account ages. The reason for this is that there are two factors in opening a new account that affect your credit card score. One is average age of accounts. The other is credit inquiries. That answerer, with FICO in high 700s, sees about a 5% swing based on new cards and closing old ones. You'll have to manage average age of accounts. I assume this is done by keeping some older ones open to prop up the average, and by judiciously closing the churn accounts. Finally, if you choose to engage in churning, and you intend to apply for a large loan and want a good credit score, simply pause the account open/close part of the churn a couple of months ahead of time. Your score should recover from the temporary hits of the inquiries. The churning communities really do have how to guides which discuss the details of this. Key phrase: credit card churning."
},
{
"docid": "407547",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm the contrarian on this forum. Since you asked a \"\"should I ...\"\" question, I'm free to answer \"\"No, you shouldn't increase your limit. Instead, you should close it out\"\". A credit card is a money pump - it pumps money from your account to the bank's profit margins. When I look at my furniture and the bank's furniture, I know exactly who needs my money more (hint: it's not the bank). Credit cards change people's spending patterns. In my first day of training as a Sears salesman, the use of the card was drummed into our heads. People purchase on average 25% more when they use a card than when they pay cash. That's good if you're a retailer or the lender (at that time Sears was both), but no good if you're a consumer. Build up a $1,000 emergency fund (for emergencies only, not \"\"I need a quick latte because I stayed up too late last night\"\"), then savings for 6 to 12 months living expenses. Close and cut up the credit card. Save up and pay cash for everything except possibly your house mortgage. If you have that much cash in the bank, the bankers will be as willing to talk to you as if you had an 800+ score. I have lived both with and without debt. Life without debt is well worth the short term sacrifice early on.\""
},
{
"docid": "99449",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to close the card, close it. The impact on your credit score will be minimal, if any, and the impact on your life will likely be even less. First, as you noted, the history from your card does not disappear when you close the card; it will stay on your credit report for as long as 10 years. By that time, you'll have many years of on-time payments from your other cards, and the loss of this one card won't be significant. Because the card has a low credit limit, it won't have much effect on your credit utilization numbers, either. Finally, your credit score might just be high enough that a small drop will have no impact on your financial life whatsoever. In my opinion, hanging onto a credit card you don't want just to try to attain some type of high score is pointless. Close the card."
},
{
"docid": "61968",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on your definition of \"\"inactive\"\". If you have credit cards open and do not use them at all for a period of time, some lenders will not update your usage to the credit bureaus while some will close your account in which will definitely hurt your credit score. But since you use your card once in a while and pay them off, you should be good. Lenders like to see some activity rather than no activity. If there are great offers out there by credit card companies, then why not take advantage of them? The only downside may be the annual fees if there is any but with your credit score, it implies you are financially responsible so there should be no 'compelling financial reason' to not open more cards. In fact, the number of credit accounts you have open can play a role on your score. Essentially the more the better. According to Credit Karma, 0-5 credit accounts is very poor, 6-10 is poor, 11-20 is good, 21+ is excellent.\""
},
{
"docid": "490100",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The preferred accounts are designed to hope you do one of several things: Pay one day late. Then charge you all the deferred interest. Many people think If they put $X a month aside, then pay just before the 6 months, 12 moths or no-payment before 2014 period ends then I will be able to afford the computer, carpet, or furniture. The interest rate they will charge you if you are late will be buried in the fine print. But expect it to be very high. Pay on time, but now that you have a card with their logo on it. So now you feel that you should buy the accessories from them. They hope that you become a long time customer. They want to make money on your next computer also. Their \"\"Bill Me Later\"\" option on that site as essentially the same as the preferred account. In the end you will have another line of credit. They will do a credit check. The impact, both positive and negative, on your credit picture is discussed in other questions. Because two of the three options you mentioned in your question (cash, debit card) imply that you have enough cash to buy the computer today, there is no reason to get another credit card to finance the purchase. The delayed payment with the preferred account, will save you about 10 dollars (2000 * 1% interest * 0.5 years). The choice of store might save you more money, though with Apple there are fewer places to get legitimate discounts. Here are your options: How to get the limit increased: You can ask for a temporary increase in the credit limit, or you can ask for a permanent one. Some credit cards can do this online, others require you to talk to them. If they are going to agree to this, it can be done in a few minutes. Some individuals on this site have even been able to send the check to the credit card company before completing the purchase, thus \"\"increasing\"\" their credit limit. YMMV. I have no idea if it works. A good reason to use the existing credit card, instead of the debit card is if the credit card is a rewards card. The extra money or points can be very nice. Just make sure you pay it back before the bill is due. In fact you can send the money to the credit card company the same day the computer arrives in the mail. Having the transaction on the credit card can also get you purchase protection, and some cards automatically extend the warranty.\""
},
{
"docid": "353980",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\""
},
{
"docid": "256921",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the other question, the OP had posted a screenshot (circa 2010) from Transunion with suggestions on how to improve the OP's credit score. One of these suggestions was to obtain \"\"retail revolving accounts.\"\" By this, they are referring to credit accounts from a particular retail store. Stores have been offering credit accounts for many years, and today, this usually takes the form of a store credit card. The credit card does not have the Visa or MasterCard logo on it, and is only valid at that particular store. (For example, Target has their own credit card that only works at Target stores.) The \"\"revolving\"\" part simply means that it is an open account that you can continue to make new charges and pay off, as opposed to a fixed retail financing loan (such as you might get at a high-end furniture store, where you obtain a loan for a single piece of furniture, and when it is paid off, the account is closed). The formula for credit scores are proprietary secrets. However, I haven't read anything that indicates that a store credit card helps your credit score more than a standard credit card. I suspect that Transunion was offering this tip in an attempt to give the consumer more ideas of how to add credit cards to their account that the consumer might not have thought of. But it is possible that buried deep in the credit score formula, there is something in there that gives you a higher score if you have a store credit card. As an aside, the OP in the other question had a credit score of 766 and was trying to make it higher. In my opinion, this is pointless. Remember that the financial services industry has an incentive to sell you as much debt as possible, and so all of their advice will point to you getting more credit accounts and getting more in debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "391384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\""
},
{
"docid": "183660",
"title": "",
"text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account."
},
{
"docid": "483441",
"title": "",
"text": "If you keep going over budget with your credit card, then stop using the credit card. If you plan to pay off the card every month, then your balance should always be under whatever your budget is. For example, if you budget to spend $500, then even though your card has a limit of $5,000 you will never carry a balance of over $500. Most banks have an option to email and / or text message you when you pass a certain balance threshold; in this instance, you would set two notices, one when your balance exceeds $400 (warning you that you're close & need to start paying closer attention), and one when you exceed $500. Additionally, maybe you aren't ready to pay for everything with your credit card. I prefer to use mine just for groceries, and then pay it off at the end of the month. Whatever rewards you get for putting all of your purchases on the card are more than paid for when you cross your budget limit, costing you more in interest and fees. Perhaps starting with just one type of purchase (groceries or gas are good choices, as most consumers are fairly consistent in their purchases of both) would allow you to ease into using the card until you get used to managing your budget with it. Personal finances are all about behavior, not knowledge. Don't worry too much about slipping up right now and making a mistake; just keep practicing good behavior with your credit card, and soon managing your budget with it will be as natural for you as when you only used cash."
},
{
"docid": "252762",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\""
},
{
"docid": "423569",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't worry about his credit score. The hit from a credit inquiry is not that big and it's absolutely worth it in the long run. I suggest you sign him up for a free budgeting app (just google budgeting app) that will help him not only take control of his spending but also help him with his loans. Transferring debt comes with a few caveats: His credit score is bad so I don't know if he'll be able to get 0% loan, but even if he gets 6% - 8% that will save him money; just don't forget about the transfer fee. If he has checking/savings account it's worth talking to that bank first - they might be able to give him a better deal for being their customer. Also if he tells them his story and credit score they might be able to give him an idea what they can offer him without doing a credit check. Another option is to become a member of a local credit union - they have great rates on loans / credit cards. Credit card or personal loan doesn't matter much, whatever he can get. With his credit score I doubt he'll be able to get a good rate at Chase or one of the other big credit card companies. Good luck."
},
{
"docid": "123733",
"title": "",
"text": "First step is to see if you have any family members which can co-sign for you so you can get a credit card, then from there as you pay off the credit cards payments you can slowly build credit. However, since you don't have any previous credit history it'll be a slow process. I think that would be a good first step in the right direction. Alternatively, you can see if close relatives such as your parents can help pay for a financial advisor who can help you much better with issues like these"
},
{
"docid": "315275",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A lot of your options depends on the type of debt you have. If you're single, young, and have lots of credit card debt then don't discount bankruptcy. It's definitely not an \"\"appealing\"\" thought I'm sure, but it's an option. One thing I did was completely cut myself off from most forms of credit (credit cards and personal credit loans). I know my weaknesses. I will never, ever, ever, get another credit card. I'm probably older than you are and have lived with debt for a long time. I'm pretty much debt free; at least from debts that are not covered 100% by assets. It took a long time. Keep your spirits up. Maybe try contacting a credit councilor; one of the real ones that aren't paid for by credit card companies. I've known people that took that route.\""
},
{
"docid": "274721",
"title": "",
"text": "If your business is a Sole Proprietorship and meets the criteria, then you would file form Schedule C. In this case you can deduct all eligible business expenses, regardless of how you pay for them (credit/debit/check/cash). The fact that it was paid for using a business credit card isn't relevant as long as it is a true business expense. The general rules apply: Yes - if you sustain a net loss, that will carry over to your personal tax return. Note: even though it isn't necessary to use a business credit card for business expenses, it's still an extremely good idea to do so, for a variety of reasons."
}
] |
6131 | Is it ever a good idea to close credit cards? | [
{
"docid": "258465",
"title": "",
"text": "You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them. Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "188028",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account:** It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "248615",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As Mr. Money Money Mustache once said: IF YOU HAVE CREDIT CARD DEBT, YOU SHOULD FEEL LIKE YOUR HAIR IS ON FIRE Student loan debt is different than credit card debt. Rather than having spent the money on just about anything, it was invested in improving yourself and probably your financial future. This was probably a good decision. However, unlike most credit card debt, if you ever have to file for bankruptcy, your student loans will not be erased. They will follow you forever. Pay your debts off as quickly as you can. While it may be true that \"\"long-term return on the stock market is about 7%\"\", you cannot assume that this will always be the case, especially in the short term. What if you had made this assumption in 2007? To assume that your stocks will beat a 6.4% guaranteed return over the next few years is not really investing. It's gambling.\""
},
{
"docid": "99449",
"title": "",
"text": "If you want to close the card, close it. The impact on your credit score will be minimal, if any, and the impact on your life will likely be even less. First, as you noted, the history from your card does not disappear when you close the card; it will stay on your credit report for as long as 10 years. By that time, you'll have many years of on-time payments from your other cards, and the loss of this one card won't be significant. Because the card has a low credit limit, it won't have much effect on your credit utilization numbers, either. Finally, your credit score might just be high enough that a small drop will have no impact on your financial life whatsoever. In my opinion, hanging onto a credit card you don't want just to try to attain some type of high score is pointless. Close the card."
},
{
"docid": "286843",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few potential downsides but they are minor: If you forget to make the payment the interest hit the following month could be significant. With many cards the new charges will be charged interest from the start if the previous payment was late/missed. Just make sure you don't forget to pay the entire bill. If the $5K in monthly bills is a large portion of the credit limit for that credit card you could run into a problem with the grace period. During the three weeks between when the monthly bill closes and the payment is due, new charges will keep rolling in. Plan on needing a credit limit for the card of 2x the monthly bills. Of course you don't have to wait for the due date. Just go online and pay the bill early. If the monthly bills are a significant portion of the total credit limit for all credit cards, it can decrease your credit score because of the high utilization rate. The good news is that over time the credit card company will increase your credit limit thus reducing the downsides of the last two items. Also keep in mind you generally can't pay a credit card bill or loan with a credit card, but many of the other bills each month can be handled this way."
},
{
"docid": "315275",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A lot of your options depends on the type of debt you have. If you're single, young, and have lots of credit card debt then don't discount bankruptcy. It's definitely not an \"\"appealing\"\" thought I'm sure, but it's an option. One thing I did was completely cut myself off from most forms of credit (credit cards and personal credit loans). I know my weaknesses. I will never, ever, ever, get another credit card. I'm probably older than you are and have lived with debt for a long time. I'm pretty much debt free; at least from debts that are not covered 100% by assets. It took a long time. Keep your spirits up. Maybe try contacting a credit councilor; one of the real ones that aren't paid for by credit card companies. I've known people that took that route.\""
},
{
"docid": "481822",
"title": "",
"text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you."
},
{
"docid": "299840",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are correct. Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction. But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash. The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee. That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct. They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it. Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can. These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as \"\"good\"\" ways to build up your credit. Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less. However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part. Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies. A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions. (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself.\""
},
{
"docid": "308131",
"title": "",
"text": "1- To max out rewards. I have 5 different credit cards, one gives me 5% back on gas, another on groceries, another on Amazon, another at restaurants and another 2% on everything else. If I had only one card, I would be missing out on a lot of rewards. Of course, you have to remember to use the right card for the right purchase. 2- To increase your credit limit. One card can give you a credit limit of $5,000, but if you have 4 of them with the same limits, you have increased your purchasing power to $20,000. This helps improve your credit score. Of course, it's never a good idea to owe $20,000 in credit card debt."
},
{
"docid": "183774",
"title": "",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc."
},
{
"docid": "112154",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit is not free money. The idea is you will repay all of it, within a reasonable amount of time. It is abundantly clear you either don't really understand this concept or completely failed at planning for it. Or even at keeping up with how much you owe - you are curiously blaming the bank for letting you go over the limit. The reason most banks will authorize that for credit customers is they don't want to strand people in some sort of an emergency situation. I'd recommend you cut back on your spending and work on paying the balance down. If you have been charged any over the limit fees you can attempt to negotiate getting those credited. Most banks will compromise on that the first time. I don't really recommend it, but if there are some circumstances surrounding this that are temporary and you are very confident about being able to manage money better in the future - chances are you might be able to get approved for another card. If you otherwise have had some good credit history and this situation is very recent, it may not even show up on your credit report yet and another bank might happily approve you. They may even offer a low or zero interest (for some time) balance transfer deal, which you should use to get the other card within the limit. If that ends up working, it's very important that you keep in mind having dodged the bullet once doesn't mean you will ever be able to do it again. Get your budget in order and pay things off."
},
{
"docid": "171473",
"title": "",
"text": "While technically true, a card issuer can cancel your card for almost any reason they want, it's highly unlikely they'll cancel it because you pay your bills! There are many, many people out there that pay their bills in full every month without ever paying a cent in credit card interest. I wouldn't ever purposefully incur any interest on a credit card. Related anecdote: I used to have a credit card that I only used for gas purchases because they gave 5% off for fuel. The issuer eventually discontinued the program (I assume because people like me took advantage of it.) So while they didn't cancel my card, the bonus eventually went away. I miss that card. My conclusion: if you can take advantage of promotional rates, by all means, go for it. You don't owe them any favors. Enjoy it as long as it lasts."
},
{
"docid": "263965",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \"\"living on credit\"\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \"\"Pre-Approved Deals\"\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\""
},
{
"docid": "170141",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two fundamentally different reasons merchants will give cash discounts. One is that they will not have to pay interchange fees on cash (or pay much lower fees on no-reward debit cards). Gas stations in my home state of NJ already universally offer different cash and credit prices. Costco will not even take Visa and MasterCard credit cards (debit only) for this reason. The second reason, not often talked about but widely known amongst smaller merchants, is that they can fail to declare the sale (or claim a smaller portion of the sale) to the authorities in order to reduce their tax liability. Obviously the larger stores will not risk their jobs for this, but smaller owner-operated (\"\"mom and pop\"\") stores often will. This applies to both reduced sales tax liability and income tax liability. This used to be more limited per sale (but more widespread overall), since tax authorities would look closely for a mismatch between declared income and spending, but with an ever-larger proportion of customers paying by credit card, merchants can take a bigger chunk of their cash sales off the books without drawing too much suspicion. Both of the above are more applicable to TVs than cars, since (1) car salesmen make substantial money from offering financing and (2) all cars must be registered with the state, so alternative records of sales abound. Also, car prices tend to be at or near the credit limit of most cards, so it is not as common to pay for them in this way.\""
},
{
"docid": "183660",
"title": "",
"text": "I've had a card cloned 15 years ago and used to buy over 5k of goods in another country. So the inconvenience of having a card closed and re-issued is quite annoying even though the charges were reversed and I was made whole. But these days most CC fraud isn't from a card scanned by a waiter and cloned then used elsewhere. Mostly it is poorly secured databases or point of sale terminal malware. The latter is getting curtailed by chipped cards and the largest source of fraud is now online transactions (so called card not present) where the merchant has your CC number. If their system is breached the bad guys have a wealth of card numbers they sell in an E-bay like site on the dark web. This is where the Citi virtual CC comes in handy. Here's how it works to protect the bank and the hassles you go through when a card as to be re-issued. Citi's virtual CCs let you generate an actual credit card, complete with security code and expiration date. What is unique is that once the virtual CC is used it can only be used subsequently by that same merchant and is declined by any other. You can also set a total limit on what the merchant can charge as well as an expiration date. I use them for all my online accounts because they are, for all practical purposes, immune to the malware that steals CC info. Even if somehow the virtual CC is used before the merchant makes the initial charge that locks in the CC to their account the charge can be reversed without closing your actual card which has a different number. You can manage multiple Citi virtual CCs and view charge status, close, or adjust limits over time so managing them is quite easy with no risk to your primary account."
},
{
"docid": "296165",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming the question is \"\"will they close it for inactivity (alone)\"\".. the answer is \"\"Nope\"\" ... unequivocally. Update: < My answer is geared to credit Cards issues by companies that deal in credit, not merchandise (i.e. store cards, retailer cards, etc). Retailers (like Amazon, etc), want to sell goods and are in the credit card business to generate sales. Banks and credit companies (about whom I am referring) make their money primarily on interest and secondarily on service charges (either point of use charged to the vendor that accepts payment, or fees charged to the user).> The only major issuer I will say that it might be possible is Discover, because I never kept a Discover card. I also don't keep department store cards, which might possibly do this; but I do doubt it in either of those cases too. My answer is based on Having 2 AMEX cards (Optima and Blue) and multiple other Visa/MC's that I NEVER use... and most of these I have not for over 10+ years. Since I am also presuming that you are also not talking about an account that charges a yearly or other maintenance fee.. Why would they keep the account open with the overhead (statements and other mailings,etc)? Because you MIGHT use it. You MIGHT not be able to pay it off each month. Because you MIGHT end up paying thousands in interest over many years. The pennies they pay for maintaining your account and sending you new cards with chip technology, etc.. are all worth the gamble of getting recouped from you! This is why sales people waste their time with lots of people who will not buy their product, even though it costs them time and money to prospect.. because they MIGHT buy. Naturally, there are a multitude of reasons for canceling a card; but inactivity is not one. I have no less than 10+ \"\"inactive\"\" cards, one that has a balance, and two I use \"\"infrequently\"\". I really would not mind if they closed all those accounts.. but they won't ;) So enjoy your AMEX knowing that your Visa will be there when you need/want it.. The bank that issues your Visa is banking on it! (presuming you don't foul up financially) Cheers!\""
},
{
"docid": "486376",
"title": "",
"text": "Good question. I have no idea what legal recourse they have to reverse gift and credit card purchases. Cash people are probably safe. Like I said, it's unlikely they will do anything, but I would not be holding on to gift cards purchased via gift cards if it was my money on the line."
},
{
"docid": "51959",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would not call this a \"\"good\"\" idea. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea either. Before you even consider it, you need to do a little bit of soul searching. If there is ANY chance that having multiple credit cards could entice you to spend more than you otherwise would, then this is definitely a bad idea. Avoiding temptation is the key to preventing regrettable actions (in all aspects of life). Psychoanalysis aside, let's take a mathematical approach to the question. I believe your conclusion is correct if you add some qualifiers to it: A few years from now, then your credit score will probably be higher than if you just had 1 credit card. Here are some other things to consider: And, saving the best for last: As for the hard inquiries, they should only have an effect on your credit score for 1 year (though they can be seen on your report for 2 years). Final thought: if you decide to do this (and I personally don't recommend it), I would keep the number of applications smaller (3-5 instead of 10-15). I also would only choose cards that have no annual fee. Try to choose 1 card that has 1-2% cash back and make that your regular card.\""
},
{
"docid": "257483",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, congratulations on admitting your problem and on your determination to be debt-free. Recognizing your mistakes is a huge first step, and getting rid of your debt is a very worthwhile goal. When considering debt consolidation, there are really only two reasons to do so: Reason #1: To lower your monthly payment. If you are having trouble coming up with enough money to meet your monthly obligations, debt consolidation can lower your monthly payment by extending the time frame of the debt. The problem with this one is that it doesn't help you get out of debt faster. It actually makes it longer before you are out of debt and will increase the total amount of interest that you will pay to the banks before you are done. So I would not recommend debt consolidation for this reason unless you are truly struggling with your cashflow because your minimum monthly payments are too high. In your situation, it does not sound like you need to consolidate for this reason. Reason #2: To lower your interest rate. If your debt is at a very high rate, debt consolidation can lower your interest rate, which can reduce the time it will take to eliminate your debt. The consolidation loan you are considering is at a high interest rate on its own: 13.89%. Now, it is true that some of your debt is higher than that, but it looks like the majority of your debt is less than that rate. It doesn't sound to me that you will save a significant amount of money by consolidating in this loan. If you can obtain a better consolidation loan in the future, it might be worth considering. From your question, it looks like your reasoning for the consolidation loan is to close the credit card accounts as quickly as possible. I agree that you need to quit using the cards, but this can also be accomplished by destroying the cards. The consolidation loan is not needed for this. You also mentioned that you are considering adding $3,000 to your debt. I have to say that it doesn't make sense at all to me to add to your debt (especially at 13.89%) when your goal is to eliminate your debt. To answer your question explicitly, yes, the \"\"cash buffer\"\" from the loan is a very bad idea. Here is what I recommend: (This is based on this answer, but customized for you.) Cut up/destroy your credit cards. Today. You've already recognized that they are a problem for you. Cash, checks, and debit cards are what you need to use from now on. Start working from a monthly budget, assigning a job for every dollar that you have. This will allow you to decide what to spend your money on, rather than arriving at the end of the month with no idea where your money was lost. Budgeting software can make this task easier. (See this question for more information. Your first goal should be to put a small amount of money in a savings account, perhaps $1000 - $1500 total. This is the start of your emergency fund. This money will ensure that if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you won't be so cash poor that you need to borrow money again. Note: this money should only be touched in an actual emergency, and if spent, should be replenished as soon as possible. At the rate you are talking about, it should take you less than a month to do this. After you've got your small emergency fund in place, attack the debt as quickly and aggressively as possible. The order that you pay off your debts is not significant. (The optimal method is up for debate.) At the rate you suggested ($2,000 - 2,500 per month), you can be completely debt free in maybe 18 months. As you pay off those credit cards, completely close the accounts. Ignore the conventional wisdom that tells you to leave the unused credit card accounts open to try to preserve a few points on your credit score. Just close them. After you are completely debt free, take the money that you were throwing at your debt, and use it to build up your emergency fund until it is 3-6 months' worth of your expenses. That way, you'll be able to handle a small crisis without borrowing anything. If you need more help/motivation on becoming debt free and budgeting, I recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey.\""
},
{
"docid": "272890",
"title": "",
"text": "The answer to your question is no. Your credit rating is the way creditors let each other know whether you are in a good position and have a strong tendency to repay your debts, not whether you are an easy target for making money on interest and penalties associated with failing to repay debts in full. The fact that you make your payments on time will definitely not lower your credit rating. While the banks are not making as much money on you as they would if you carried a balance, they are also not spending a lot of money on you, nor losing a lot of money on people like you failing to repay debts. The transactions charged to the retailers cover the costs of operating your card and then a little bit. That is enough to make you worth keeping as a customer. They are happy with your arrangement. The formula for credit rating computation is proprietary, but we know what the factors are overall. Making payments on time consistently is a positive, not a negative factor. However, they do look at the number of cards and overall mix of cards and other types of debt. For example, if you have a very large amount of credit capacity in your cards and no mortgage, that could possibly be a negative. If you have opened some of those accounts recently, it could be a negative. If you have a larger number credit cards than they think is good, that could be a negative. There are other things as well that could be bringing your score down. Probably worth it to take a look. If you want to get an idea of what factors are adding positively and negatively to your credit score, I'd encourage you to visit CreditKarma.com, Quizzle.com, or another source intended to help you understand and improve your credit rating."
}
] |
6133 | What happens to all of the options when they expire? | [
{
"docid": "7733",
"title": "",
"text": "Options that are not worth exercising just expire. Options that are worth exercising are typically exercised automatically as they expire, resulting in a transfer of stock between the entity that issued the option and the entity that holds it. OCC options automatically exercise when they expire if the value of the option exceeds the transaction cost for the stock transfer (1/4 point to 3/4 point depending)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "558233",
"title": "",
"text": "I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively."
},
{
"docid": "415887",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no reason to roll an option if the current market value is lower than the strike sold. Out-of-the-money strikes (as is the $12 strike) are all time value which is decaying constantly and that is to our advantage. If share price remains below the strike, the option will expire worthless, you will still have your shares and free to sell another option the Monday after expiration Friday. If share price is > $12 on expiration Friday and you want to keep those shares, you can roll out or out-and-up depending on your outlook for the stock. Good luck, Alan"
},
{
"docid": "463254",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think you understand options. If it expires, you can't write a new call for the same expiration date as it expired that day. Also what if the stock price decreases further to $40 or even more? If you think the stock will move in either way greatly, and you wish to be profit from it, look into straddles."
},
{
"docid": "143655",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of \"\"call option\"\" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the \"\"exercise price\"\", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would \"\"exercise\"\" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has \"\"vested\"\" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires.\""
},
{
"docid": "292045",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When the strike price ($25 in this case) is in-the-money, even by $0.01, your shares will be sold the day after expiration if you take no action. If you want to let your shares go,. allow assignment rather than close the short position and sell the long position...it will be cheaper that way. If you want to keep your shares you must buy back the option prior to 4Pm EST on expiration Friday. First ask yourself why you want to keep the shares. Is it to write another option? Is it to hold for a longer term strategy? Assuming this is a covered call writing account, you should consider \"\"rolling\"\" the option. This involves buying back the near-term option and selling the later date option of a similar or higher strike. Make sure to check to see if there is an upcoming earnings report in the latter month because you may want to avoid writing a call in that situation. I never write a call when there's an upcoming ER prior to expiration. Good luck. Alan\""
},
{
"docid": "575408",
"title": "",
"text": "An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules."
},
{
"docid": "384924",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The first issue you'll find is that if you aren't going to immediately live in the house as a primary residence, this property counts as a \"\"second home\"\" or \"\"investment property\"\". You'll generally pay a higher interest rate, have a larger down payment, and qualify for less government-backed programs/incentives/subsidies than you would otherwise. The lending criteria on such properties is always more strict - and generally more costly - than an equivalent primary residence. Lenders won't really care that in 10 years you or your parents plan to move in - you can't be held to that, so they'll generally ignore that plan entirely. On a related note, you should be aware that insurance for the property will also generally cost more, but you'd need to get quotes to determine if that is at all significant in your situation. You'll need to talk with a few potential lenders, but from a first read it sounds like it would be best \"\"storied\"\" like so: you and your parents want to buy a 2nd home or vacation home, which you'll share the use of (vacations, etc, and being converted to a primary residence later). It'll need to be clear what plan to use the property for - if you intend to rent out the home in the interim years then instead make that clear and state it will be an investment home; if it is what you are planning it might make it easier, as expected rent for the property will be considered. Saying you want a mortgage for a home no one will live in for a decade probably isn't a good idea, as a general plan anyway. Either way, this can be called a \"\"joint mortgage\"\". When I was a loan officer we didn't use that term, but it's basically just a mortgage application with multiple people on it, all of whom are combined together to qualify for the loan. Everyone's income, debts, assets, and credit get included, which can work or one person's situation can cause the whole thing to collapse. From your description I think this could work for you, and one option is to set it up where only one of the parents is on the application if the other parent has problematic credit situation. Note that his possibility is often restricted by local law, so it may not be an option for you in your jurisdiction, but worth being aware of. An alternative is you just buy the property and the parents gift you the down payment, and you list them as beneficiaries in will/trust in case something happens to you before they retire, but I don't know if that would make any sense in your situation. This is a single applicant mortgage, and it means only you are considered as buying it, which sometimes is the only option depending on your parents current financial situation. It's usually something you try if the other option doesn't work, but it's a fallback plan. Some lenders will allow guarantors (co-signers in US parlance), but this will vary by lender and locale - often what they actually want is a joint mortgage, not really a guarantor/cosigner. Finally, you'll need to plan for what happens if things don't go as planned, regardless of what happens. What if your income changes, if either of your parents become deceased in advance of retirement, if they get a divorced from each other, or if either/both become ill or disabled and need assisted care? Planning for such unpleasant possibilities (even if they seem crazy and not going to happen in your mind right now) can save you all a tremendous amount of heart ache later on when the unexpected (including things I didn't mention) pops up.\""
},
{
"docid": "275199",
"title": "",
"text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can."
},
{
"docid": "427145",
"title": "",
"text": "In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares."
},
{
"docid": "253866",
"title": "",
"text": "Your math shows that you bought an 'at the money' option for .35 and when the stock is $1 above the strike, your $35 (options trade as a contract for 100 shares) is now worth $100. You knew this, just spelling it out for future readers. 1 - Yes 2 - An execute/sell may not be nesesary, the ooption will have time value right until expiration, and most ofter the bid/ask will favor selling the option. You should ask the broker what the margin requirement is for an execute/sell. Keep in mind this usually cannot be done on line, if I recall, when I wanted to execute, it was a (n expensive) manual order. 3 - I think I answered in (2), but in general they are not identical, the bid/ask on options can get crazy. Just look at some thinly traded strikes and you'll see what I mean."
},
{
"docid": "477588",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, if it's an American style option. American style options may be exercised at any time prior to expiration (even if they're not in-the-money). Generally, you are required to deliver or accept delivery of the underlying by the beginning of the next trading day. If you are short, you may be chosen by the clearinghouse to fulfill the exercise (a process called \"\"assignment\"\"). Because the clearinghouse is the counter-party to every options trade, you can be assigned even if the specific person who purchased the option you wrote didn't exercise, but someone else who holds a long position did. Similarly, you might not be assigned if that person did exercise. The clearinghouse randomly chooses a brokerage to fulfill an assignment, and the brokerage will randomly choose an individual account. If you're going to be writing options, especially using spreads, you need to have a plan ahead of time on what to do if one of your legs gets assigned. This is more likely to happen just before a dividend payment, if the payment is more than the remaining time value.\""
},
{
"docid": "118360",
"title": "",
"text": "First, it depends on your broker. Full service firms will tear you a new one, discount brokers may charge ~nothing. You'll have to check with your broker on assignment fees. Theoretically, this is the case of the opposite of my answer in this question: Are underlying assets supposed to be sold/bought immediately after being bought/sold in call/put option? Your trading strategy/reasoning for your covered call notwithstanding, in your case, as an option writer covering in the money calls, you want to hold and pray that your option expires worthless. As I said in the other answer, there is always a theoretical premium of option price + exercise price to underlying prices, no matter how slight, right up until expiration, so on that basis, it doesn't pay to close out the option. However, there's a reality that I didn't mention in the other answer: if it's a deep in the money option, you can actually put a bid < stock price - exercise price - trade fee and hope for the best since the market makers rarely bid above stock price - exercise price for illiquid options, but it's unlikely that you'll beat the market makers + hft. They're systems are too fast. I know the philly exchange allows you to put in implied volatility orders, but they're expensive, and I couldn't tell you if a broker/exchange allows for dynamic orders with the equation I specified above, but it may be worth a shot to check out; however, it's unlikely that such a low order would ever be filled since you'll at best be lined up with the market makers, and it would require a big player dumping all its' holdings at once to get to your order. If you're doing a traditional, true-blue covered call, there's absolutely nothing wrong being assigned except for the tax implications. When your counterparty calls away your underlyings, it is a sell for tax purposes. If you're not covering with the underlying but with a more complex spread, things could get hairy for you real quick if someone were to exercise on you, but that's always a risk. If your broker is extremely strict, they may close the rest of your spread for you at the offer. In illiquid markets, that would be a huge percentage loss considering the wide bid/ask spreads."
},
{
"docid": "177559",
"title": "",
"text": "Prior to 2005, the only SPY options that existed were the monthly ones that expire on the third Friday of every month. But in 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange introduced SPY weekly options that expire every Friday (except that there is no weekly option that expires on the same day as a monthly option). These weekly options only exist for 8 days - they start trading on a Thursday and expire 8 days later on Friday. The SPY options that expire on Friday October 31 are weekly options, and they started trading on Thursday October 23. Sources: Investopedia"
},
{
"docid": "481070",
"title": "",
"text": "An expired option is a stand-alone event, sold at $X, with a bought at $0 on the expiration date. The way you phrased the question is ambiguous, as 'decrease toward zero' is not quite the same as expiring worthless, you'd need to buy it at the near-zero price to then sell another covered call at a lower strike. Edit - If you entered the covered call sale properly, you find that an in-the-money option results in a sale of the shares at expiration. When entered incorrectly, there are two possibilities, the broker buys the option back at the market close, or you wake up Sunday morning (the options 'paperwork' clears on Saturday after expiration) finding yourself owning a short position, right next to the long. A call, and perhaps a fee, are required to zero it out. As you describe it, there are still two transactions to report, the option at $50 strike that you bought and sold, the other a stock transaction that has a sale price of the strike plus option premium collected."
},
{
"docid": "41967",
"title": "",
"text": "For listed options in NYSE,CBOE, is it possible for an option holder to exercise an option even if it is not in the money? Abandonment of in-the-money options or the exercise of out-of-the-money options are referred as contrarian instructions. They are sometimes forbidden, e.g. see CME - Weekly & End-of-Month (EOM) Options on Standard & E-mini S&P 500 Futures (mirror): In addition to offering European-style alternatives (which by definition can only be exercised on expiration day), both the weekly and EOM options prohibit contrarian instructions (the abandonment of in-the-money options, or the exercise of out-of-the-money options). Thus, at expiration, all in-the-money options are automatically exercised, whereas all options not in-the-money are automatically abandoned."
},
{
"docid": "127578",
"title": "",
"text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation."
},
{
"docid": "116436",
"title": "",
"text": "Traditionally options expired on the 3rd Wednesday of the months of Mar, Jun, Sep, Dec as this day was never a holiday. See IMM dates. However as option use exploded there were monthly and weekly options created on different schedules. The exchange will specify when its options expire in the contract."
},
{
"docid": "237499",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are a few different \"\"kinds\"\" of implied volatility. They are all based on the IVs obtained from the option pricing model you use. (1) Basically, given a few different values (current stock price, time until expiration, right of option, exercise style, strike of the option, interest rates, dividends, etc), you can obtain the IV for a given option price. If you look at the bid of an option, you can calculate the IV for that bid. If you look at the ask, there's a different IV for the ask. You can then look at the mid price, then you have a different IV, and so on and so on. And that's for each strike, in each expiration cycle! So you have a ton of different IVs. (2) In many option trading platforms, you'll see another kind of IV: the IV for each specific expiration cycle. That's calculated based on some of the IVs I mentioned on topic (1). Some kind of aggregation (more on this later). (3) Finally, people often talk about \"\"the IV of stock XYZ\"\". That's, again, an aggregation calculated from many of the IVs mentioned on topic (1). Now, your question seems to be: which IVs, from which options, from which months, with which weight, are part of the expiration cycle IV or for the IV of the stock itself? It really depends on the trading platform you are talking about. But very frequently, people will use a calculation similar to how the CBOE calculates the VIX. Basically, the VIX is just like the IV described on topic (3) above, but specifically for SPX, the S&P 500 index. The very detailed procedure and formulas to calculate the VIX (ie, IV of SPX) is described here: http://cfe.cboe.com/education/vixprimer/about.aspx If you apply the same (or a similar) methodology to other stocks, you'll get what you could call \"\"the IV of stock XYZ\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "228810",
"title": "",
"text": "No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM. Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend."
}
] |
6133 | What happens to all of the options when they expire? | [
{
"docid": "415705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "206377",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Options are generally viewed as having two types of value: \"\"Intrinsic value\"\" and \"\"time value.\"\" The intrinsic value is based on the difference between the strike price on the option and the spot price of the underlying. The time value is based on the volatility of the underlying and the amount of time left until expiration. As the days pass toward expiration, the time value generally decreases, and the intrinsic value may move up or down depending on the spot price of the underlying. (In theory, time value could increase at some points if the volatility is also rising.) In your case, it looks like the time value is decreasing faster than the intrinsic value is increasing. This may happen because the volatility is also going down (as suggested in the answer by CQM) or may just happen because the time to expiration is getting shorter at equal volatility. As noted by DumbCoder in a comment to the original question, the Black-Scholes formula will give you more analytical insight into this if you're interested.\""
},
{
"docid": "11456",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer to your initial question is: yes. The option doesn't expire until the close of the market on the day of expiration. Because the option is expiring so soon, the time value of the option is quite small. That is why the option, once it is 'in-the-money', will track so closely to the underlying stock price. If someone buys an in-the-money option on the day of expiration, they are likely still expecting the price to go up before they sell it or exercise it. Many brokers will exercise your in-the-money options sometime after 3pm on the day of expiration. If this is not what you desire, you should communicate that with them prior to that day."
},
{
"docid": "171819",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\""
},
{
"docid": "120611",
"title": "",
"text": "(Note: I am omitting the currency units. While I strongly suspect it's US$ I don't know from the chart. The system works the same no matter what the currency.) A call or a put is the right to sell (put) or buy (call) shares at a certain price on a certain day. This is why you see a whole range of prices. Not all possible stock values are represented, the number of possibilities has to be kept reasonable. In this case the choices are even units, for an expensive stock they may be spaced even farther apart than this. The top of the chart says it's for June. It's actually the third Friday in the month, June 15th in this case. Thus these are bets on how the stock will move in the next 10 days. While the numbers are per share you can only trade options in lots of 100. The left side of the chart shows calls. Suppose you sell a call at 19 (the top of the chart) The last such trade would have gotten you a premium of 9.70 per share (the flip side of this is when the third friday rolls around it will most likely be exercised and they'll be paying you only 19 a share for a stock now trading at something over 26.) Note the volume, bid and ask columns though--you're not going to get 9.70 for such a call as there is no buyer. The most anybody is offering at present is 7.80 a share. Now, lets look farther down in the chart--say, a strike price of 30. The last trade was only .10--people think it's very unlikely that FB will rise above 30 to make this option worthwhile and thus you get very little for being willing to sell at that price. If FB stays at 26 the option will expire worthless and go away. If it's up to 31 when the 15th rolls around they'll exercise the option, take your shares and pay you 30 for them. Note that you already gave permission for the trade by selling the call, you can't back out later if it becomes a bad deal. Going over to the other side of the chart with the puts: Here the transaction goes the other way, come the 15th they have the option of selling you the shares for the strike price. Lets look at the same values we did before. 19? There's no trading, you can't do it. 30? Here you will collect 3.20 for selling the put. Come the 15th they have the right to sell you the stock for 30 a share. If it's still 26 they're certainly going to do so, but if it's up to 31 it's worthless and you pocket the 3.20 Note that you will normally not be allowed to sell a call if you don't own the shares in question. This is a safety measure as the risk in selling a call without the stock is infinite. If the stock somehow zoomed up to 10,000 when the 15th rolls around you would have to come up with the shares and the only way you could get them is buy them on the open market--you would have to come up with a million dollars. If there simply aren't enough shares available to cover the calls the result is catastrophic--whoever owns the shares simply gets to dictate terms to you. (And in the days of old this sometimes happened.)"
},
{
"docid": "237499",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are a few different \"\"kinds\"\" of implied volatility. They are all based on the IVs obtained from the option pricing model you use. (1) Basically, given a few different values (current stock price, time until expiration, right of option, exercise style, strike of the option, interest rates, dividends, etc), you can obtain the IV for a given option price. If you look at the bid of an option, you can calculate the IV for that bid. If you look at the ask, there's a different IV for the ask. You can then look at the mid price, then you have a different IV, and so on and so on. And that's for each strike, in each expiration cycle! So you have a ton of different IVs. (2) In many option trading platforms, you'll see another kind of IV: the IV for each specific expiration cycle. That's calculated based on some of the IVs I mentioned on topic (1). Some kind of aggregation (more on this later). (3) Finally, people often talk about \"\"the IV of stock XYZ\"\". That's, again, an aggregation calculated from many of the IVs mentioned on topic (1). Now, your question seems to be: which IVs, from which options, from which months, with which weight, are part of the expiration cycle IV or for the IV of the stock itself? It really depends on the trading platform you are talking about. But very frequently, people will use a calculation similar to how the CBOE calculates the VIX. Basically, the VIX is just like the IV described on topic (3) above, but specifically for SPX, the S&P 500 index. The very detailed procedure and formulas to calculate the VIX (ie, IV of SPX) is described here: http://cfe.cboe.com/education/vixprimer/about.aspx If you apply the same (or a similar) methodology to other stocks, you'll get what you could call \"\"the IV of stock XYZ\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "345851",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Cart's answer describes well one aspects of puts: protective puts; which means using puts as insurance against a decline in the price of shares that you own. That's a popular use of puts. But I think the wording of your question is angling for another strategy: Writing puts. Consider: Cart's strategy refers to the buyer of a put. But, on the transaction's other side is a seller of the put – and ultimately somebody created or wrote that put contract in the first place! That first seller of the put – that is, the seller that isn't just selling one they themselves bought – is the put writer. When you write a put, you are taking on the obligation to buy the other side's stock at the put exercise price if the stock price falls below that exercise price by the expiry date. For taking on the obligation, you receive a premium, like how an insurance company charges a premium to insure against a loss. Example: Imagine ABC Co. stock is trading at $25.00. You write a put contract agreeing to buy 100 shares of ABC at $20.00 per share (the exercise price) by a given expiration date. Say you receive $2.00/share premium from the put buyer. You now have the obligation to purchase the shares from the put buyer in the event they are below $20.00 per share when the option expires – or, technically any time before then, if the buyer chooses to exercise the option early. Assuming no early assignment, one of two things will happen at the option expiration date: ABC trades at or above $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will expire worthless in the hands of the put buyer. You will have pocketed the $200 and be absolved from your obligation. This case, where ABC trades above the exercise price, is the maximum profit potential. ABC trades below $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will be assigned and you'll need to fork over $2000 to the put buyer in exchange for his 100 ABC shares. If those shares are worth less than $18.00 in the market, then you've suffered a loss to the extent they are below that price (times 100), because remember – you pocketed $200 premium in the first place. If the shares are between $18.00 to $20.00, you're still profitable, but not to the full extent of the premium received. You can see that by having written a put it's possible to acquire ABC stock at a price lower than the market price – because you received some premium in the process of writing your put. If you don't \"\"succeed\"\" in acquiring shares on your first write (because the shares didn't get below the exercise price), you can continue to write puts and collect premium until you do get assigned. I have read the book \"\"Money for Nothing (And Your Stocks for FREE!)\"\" by Canadian author Derek Foster. Despite the flashy title, the book essentially describes Derek's strategy for writing puts against dividend-paying value stocks he would love to own. Derek picks quality companies that pay a dividend, and uses put writing to get in at lower-than-market prices. Four Pillars reviewed the book and interviewed Derek Foster: Money for Nothing: Book Review and Interview with Derek Foster. Writing puts entails risk. If the stock price drops to zero then you'll end up paying the put exercise price to acquire worthless shares! So your down-side can easily be multiples of the premium collected. Don't do this until and unless you understand exactly how this works. It's advanced. Note also that your broker isn't likely to permit you to write puts without having sufficient cash or margin in your account to cover the case where you are forced to buy the stock. You're better off having cash to secure your put buys, otherwise you may be forced into leverage (borrowing) when assigned. Additional Resources: The Montreal Exchange options guide (PDF) that Cart already linked to is an excellent free resource for learning about options. Refer to page 39, \"\"Writing secured put options\"\", for the strategy above. Other major options exchanges and organizations also provide high-quality free learning material:\""
},
{
"docid": "116963",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As mentioned before - you're over-thinking the hard-pull issue. But do try to make the preapproval as close to the actual bidding as possible - because it costs money. At least from my experience, you'll get charged the application fee for preapproval, while \"\"pre-qualification\"\" is usually free. If you're seriously shopping, I find it hard to believe that you can't find a house within 3 months. If you're already in the process and your offer has been accepted and you opened the escrow - I believe the preapproval will be extended if it expires before closing. I've just had a similar case from the other side, as a buyer, and the seller had a short-sale approval that expired before closing. It was extended to make the deal happen, and that's when the bank is actually loosing money. So don't worry about that. If you haven't even started the process and the preapproval expired, you might have to start it all over again from scratch, including all the fees. The credit score is a minor issue (unless you do it every 2-3 months).\""
},
{
"docid": "46291",
"title": "",
"text": "Think of it this way: 1) You buy 1k in call options that will let you buy 100k of stock when they expire in the money in a year. 2) You take the 99k you would have spent on the stock and invest it in a risk free savings account. 3) Assume the person who sold you the call, immediately hedges the position by buying 100k of stock to deliver when the options expire. The amount of money you could make on risk free interest needs to be comparable to the premium you paid the option writer for tying up their capital, or they wouldn't have made the trade. So higher risk free rates would mean a higher call price. NOTE: The numbers are not equal because of the risk in writing the option, but they will move the same direction."
},
{
"docid": "384924",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The first issue you'll find is that if you aren't going to immediately live in the house as a primary residence, this property counts as a \"\"second home\"\" or \"\"investment property\"\". You'll generally pay a higher interest rate, have a larger down payment, and qualify for less government-backed programs/incentives/subsidies than you would otherwise. The lending criteria on such properties is always more strict - and generally more costly - than an equivalent primary residence. Lenders won't really care that in 10 years you or your parents plan to move in - you can't be held to that, so they'll generally ignore that plan entirely. On a related note, you should be aware that insurance for the property will also generally cost more, but you'd need to get quotes to determine if that is at all significant in your situation. You'll need to talk with a few potential lenders, but from a first read it sounds like it would be best \"\"storied\"\" like so: you and your parents want to buy a 2nd home or vacation home, which you'll share the use of (vacations, etc, and being converted to a primary residence later). It'll need to be clear what plan to use the property for - if you intend to rent out the home in the interim years then instead make that clear and state it will be an investment home; if it is what you are planning it might make it easier, as expected rent for the property will be considered. Saying you want a mortgage for a home no one will live in for a decade probably isn't a good idea, as a general plan anyway. Either way, this can be called a \"\"joint mortgage\"\". When I was a loan officer we didn't use that term, but it's basically just a mortgage application with multiple people on it, all of whom are combined together to qualify for the loan. Everyone's income, debts, assets, and credit get included, which can work or one person's situation can cause the whole thing to collapse. From your description I think this could work for you, and one option is to set it up where only one of the parents is on the application if the other parent has problematic credit situation. Note that his possibility is often restricted by local law, so it may not be an option for you in your jurisdiction, but worth being aware of. An alternative is you just buy the property and the parents gift you the down payment, and you list them as beneficiaries in will/trust in case something happens to you before they retire, but I don't know if that would make any sense in your situation. This is a single applicant mortgage, and it means only you are considered as buying it, which sometimes is the only option depending on your parents current financial situation. It's usually something you try if the other option doesn't work, but it's a fallback plan. Some lenders will allow guarantors (co-signers in US parlance), but this will vary by lender and locale - often what they actually want is a joint mortgage, not really a guarantor/cosigner. Finally, you'll need to plan for what happens if things don't go as planned, regardless of what happens. What if your income changes, if either of your parents become deceased in advance of retirement, if they get a divorced from each other, or if either/both become ill or disabled and need assisted care? Planning for such unpleasant possibilities (even if they seem crazy and not going to happen in your mind right now) can save you all a tremendous amount of heart ache later on when the unexpected (including things I didn't mention) pops up.\""
},
{
"docid": "88892",
"title": "",
"text": "Option prices consist of two parts: the intrinsic value (the difference between the strike and the current price of the stock) and a time premium, representing the probability that the stock will end up above the strike for a call (or below for a put). All else being equal, options decline in value as time passes, since there is less uncertainty about the expected value of the stock at expiration and thus the time premium is smaller. Theta is the measure of the change in value in one day. So for every day that passes, the calls you sold are going down by $64.71 (which is positive to you since you sold them at a higher value) and the calls you sold are going down by $49.04. So your position (a short spread) is gaining $15.67 each day (assuming no change in stock price or volatility). In reality, the stock price and volatility also change every day, and those are much stronger drivers of the value of your options. In your case, however, the options are deep out of the money, meaning it's very likely that they'll expire worthless, so all you have left is time premium, which is decaying as time goes on."
},
{
"docid": "274818",
"title": "",
"text": "Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less."
},
{
"docid": "6771",
"title": "",
"text": "Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition."
},
{
"docid": "427145",
"title": "",
"text": "In Australia there are 2 type of warrants (I don't know if it is the same in the US, UK and other countries), the first are trading warrants and the second are instalment warrants. The trading warrants are exactly what it says, they are used for trading. They are similar to option and have calls and puts. As Cameron says, they differ from exchange traded options in that they are issued by the financial companies whereas options are generally written by other investors. Instalment warrants on the other hand are usually bought and sold by investors with a longer term view. There are no calls and puts and you can just go long with them. They are also issued by financial companies, and how they work is best explained through an example: if I was to buy a stock directly say I would be paying $50 per share, however an instalment warrant in the underlying stock may be offered for $27 per warrant. I could buy the warrant directly from the company when it is issued or on the secondary market just like shares. I would pay the $27 per warrant upfront, and then in 2 years time when the warrant expires I have the choice to purchase the underlying stock for the strike price of say $28, roll over to a new issue of warrants, sell it back on the secondary market, or let it expire, in which case I would receive any intrinsic value left in the warrant. You would have noticed that the warrant purchase price plus the strike price adds up to more than the share price ($55 compared to $50). This is the interest component inherent in the warrant which covers the borrowing costs until expiry, when you pay the second portion (the strike price) and receive the underlying shares. Another difference between Instalment warrants and trading warrants (and options) is that with instalment warrants you still get the full dividends just like the shares, but at a higher yield than the shares."
},
{
"docid": "228810",
"title": "",
"text": "No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM. Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend."
},
{
"docid": "367928",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen."
},
{
"docid": "484362",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement."
},
{
"docid": "291600",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\""
},
{
"docid": "578022",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \"\"gone\"\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \"\"qualified\"\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\""
},
{
"docid": "200136",
"title": "",
"text": "In general, currency has no expiration date. Specifically, in Canada, the Bank of Canada has been issuing banknotes since 1935, and these are still considered legal tender, even though they don't look much like the modern banknotes. Before that, Canadian chartered banks issued currency, and these also still have value. However, there are a few things to note. First of all, with currency of that age, it often has more value as a collector's item than the face value. So spending it at a store would be foolish. Second, store clerks are not experts in old currency, and will not accept a bill that they do not recognize. If you want the face value of your old currency, you may need to exchange it for modern currency at a bank. Having said all that, there are certainly cases where currency does expire. Generally this happens when a country changes currency. For example, when the Euro was introduced, the old currencies were discontinued. After a window of exchange, the old currency in many cases lost its value. So if you have some old French Franc notes, for example, they can no longer be exchanged for Euros. These types of events cannot be predicted in the future, of course, so it is impossible to say when, if ever, the Canadian currency you have today will lose its spending value in Canada."
}
] |
6142 | How does stabilization work during an IPO? | [
{
"docid": "155461",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are no \"\"rules\"\" about how the price should act after an IPO, so there are no guarantee that a \"\"pop\"\" would appear at the opening day. But when an IPO is done, it's typically underpriced. On average, the shares are 10% up at the end of the first day after the IPO (I don't have the source that, I just remember that from some finance course). Also, after the IPO, the underwriter can be asked to support the trading of the share for a certain period of time. That is the so called stabilizing agent. They have few obligations like: This price support in often done by a repurchase of some of the shares of poorly performing IPO. EDIT: Informations about the overallotment pool. When the IPO is done, a certain number of client buy the shares issued by the company. The underwriter, with the clients, can decide to create an overallotment pool, where the clients would get a little more shares (hence \"\"overallotment\"\"), but this time the shares are not issued by the company but by the underwriter. To put it another way, the underwriter oversell and becomes short by a certain number of shares (limited to 15% of the IPO). In exchange for the risk taken by this overallotment, the underwriter gets a greenshoe option from the clients, that will allows the underwriter to buy back the oversold shares, at the price of the IPO, from the clients. The idea behind this option is to avoid a market exposure for the underwriter. So, after the IPO: If the price goes down, the underwriter buys back on the market the overshorted shares and makes a profits. If the price goes up, the company exercise the greenshoe option buy the shares at the IPO prices (throught the overallotment pool, that is, the additional shares that the clients wanted ) to avoid suffering a loss.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "12027",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air."
},
{
"docid": "138178",
"title": "",
"text": "That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares. An IPO in explain like I'm five: A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least*** 30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back. *** So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it. Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't."
},
{
"docid": "22207",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will \"\"dilute\"\" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is \"\"nominal value\"\", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say \"\"look\"\", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really \"\"survived\"\", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance.\""
},
{
"docid": "248817",
"title": "",
"text": "$USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services."
},
{
"docid": "499154",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\""
},
{
"docid": "581848",
"title": "",
"text": "During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding. Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share. Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares. This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1. Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding. A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share. It does a 1 for 10 split. Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share. It does a 10 for 1 reverse split. Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split. You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split"
},
{
"docid": "307426",
"title": "",
"text": "You can't calculate how many houses it will take. To do so you would have to know how much you can charge in rent compared to how much is costs to run that particular location. If the desirability of that location changes, so does the ability to rent the place, and so does the amount you can charge. It is possible to create a business in real estate that would allow you to generate retirement income. But you would be focusing all your income in your retirement years on one segment of the entire investment universe. The diversification would have to come from spreading the money through different types of real estate: condo, apartments, houses, commercial, warehouse, light industrial. You would even have to decide whether you want them all in one micro-market, or spread throughout a larger market, or an even wider area diversification. As your empire grew and you approached retirement age you would have to decide if you wanted to liquidate your investments to minimize risk. The long leases that provides stability of income would make it hard to sell quickly if the market in one area started to weaken."
},
{
"docid": "313695",
"title": "",
"text": "The IPO price is set between the underwriters and the specialist in the NASDAQ. There are a lot of complexities on how to get to this price, everyone is trying to pull to their own side. In the Facebook example, the price was $38 for all IPO participants. Then, once the IPO went to the secondary market, the bid/ask drove the pricing. At the secondary market the price is driven by the demand and offer of the stock. That is, people who wanted to buy right after the IPO likely drove the initial price up."
},
{
"docid": "566704",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not saying the trading activity in FACE is related or unrelated.. But where do you see a 10Q released on 3/31? First of all, 3/31 is the last day of Q1. It is virtually impossible to have an entire 10Q prepared the same day that the quarter ends. Most 10Q/Ks are released approximately 6 weeks after the close of the quarter. In addition, look at EDGAR: http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=&match=&CIK=face&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany The Q1 10Q wasn't released until May 4. On a side note - I was on a roadshow for an unrelated IPO a couple weeks back and the FB IPO consistently came up with brokers. Probably 80% said that their number 1 question from clients was \"\"How can I get a part of the facebook IPO.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "407911",
"title": "",
"text": "Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "436536",
"title": "",
"text": "Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop."
},
{
"docid": "400713",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I actually tend to disagree. This was one of the most watched IPOs in history. Facebook would have benefited greatly from a pop. People would have thought \"\"wow, they really can do no wrong\"\". Instead there are endless negative articles about how this is a horrible failure. Sure, financially savvy people look at this and think FB did a beautiful job. They maximized their take from the IPO. But the price of the bad press can't be accurately measured. The benefit in terms of publicity of being seen as a stock/company on the move UP is hard to measure too. Suppose they had priced it at $25 and limited the number of shares they would have gotten less money but they'd also be looking at a massively successful pop on their share price. The halo effect on their business of THAT reality seems to me to have had the potential to be significant. So I'm not so sure, in the long term, whether it would have made more sense for them to get less money up front and get a successful IPO rather than go for the max dollars and have a PR disaster. I think the way things turned out made FB go from an unstoppable juggernaut into a company that can fail just like any other.\""
},
{
"docid": "77631",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\""
},
{
"docid": "486926",
"title": "",
"text": ">What may have been a clever idea in its infancy has grown into a blob which is destructive to the growth-creating and consensus-building prospects of free market capitalism I wonder how many IPOs this guy has underwritten. I wonder how often he shorts right before earnings to try to make a quick buck. Hedge funds are all speculation. This guy is completely full of shit. He acts like he is doing some holy duty of balancing the market but all he fucking does is move money around when it's convenient in hopes for rapid returns."
},
{
"docid": "397527",
"title": "",
"text": "I haven't read the paper, but have read similar papers before, will likely read this paper here in a while. I can see the use for patents to a degree. Not the way they are now, but in some form or another I think they should still exist. I am not under the delusion of they help innovate. I see them more or less as bringing stability to the marketplace/business. The changes I would like to see made, is on certain patents, or probably all patents, that they expire at a certain time. Or if the patent is not put to use in a given time frame that it falls back into the public domain. Expired patents being fully searchable online, for free. I would also disallow any patenting of genes, or anything that nature has produced and or made. If some one makes a new element, or makes an absolutely new gene that has been seen, or found any where else, then sure patent it. But something that already exists? No. I agree that patents do stifle creativity, and ultimately do harm us as a developing nation. Especially in it's current iteration. The solution I briefly went over would give a happy medium. It would do much less harm than now, and offer better innovation down the road. The stability question with relation to business/marketplace is how certain products are made and produced. Some people put a lot of time and effort into developing something and they need a little protection in doing it. 7 years or so should be enough to recoup that back and then some. After that time they can still produce said product, but would have to compete against everyone else who uses a similar design. All in all I think every one can agree that the patent/copyright system needs serious overhaul, and not because it is too weak, but it is because it was designed, and implemented in a 20th century mindset, not a 21st. It worked somewhat well in the early 1900's but since then it has not. Things move at a faster rate now than they did then. As such in this day in age it is a lot stronger than it needs to be, and needs to be dialed back in a lot of areas. It needs to be overhauled by people who know the area well, and have no financial stake in the system one way or the other. Possibly people in academia with knowledge on the system and can offer valid arguments for it's change, and help to bring in common sense reforms to the system. With how fucked up it is now, it would probably be best to just scrap the system, and design a new system from the ground up. All currently held patents now have a 7 year life span. If the patent is not in current use, you have a year to show that you are working toward using the patent, rather than just shelving it so no one else can use it."
},
{
"docid": "113550",
"title": "",
"text": "Again, I don't have the answers, but it seems to me as though the value of stock in a company should be directly correlated somehow to the real world value - what it holds in assets, the demand for its services or products. And when you see IPOs of tech stocks with prices exponentially greater than their revenues, or derivatives that when unravelled are nothing but air, or intraday fits and runs that seem to be tied to nothing in particular, then it all starts to look like nothing but manipulation. Maybe you're right, there's nothing wrong with HFT and a tax on it wouldn't add stability, I can't say. And if you explained it, I must not have understood. But I don't think its wrong for people to consider the current (or past) instability undesirable and try to think of solutions."
},
{
"docid": "303718",
"title": "",
"text": "I have several as well, (acquired the same way as you) and I am happy with the idea. They are very stable and that is the reason they pay so little. I don't think you can get a low risk and medium (or high) return. The interest does reset every six months so you do get a bit of the market, should the fed set interest rates higher, you bonds will eventually reflect that. Bonds and Certificates of Deposit are just one element of your investment portfolio. Put the money you can't lose into bonds, the money you can into higher risk stocks. Bonds are great from our grandparent's perspective because they are NOT going to lose value. (My grandparents were depression era folks who wanted that stability) They are trivial to give as gifts. Most other investment forms require a heavy bit more of legal work I would think."
},
{
"docid": "205773",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/bail-ins-and-bailouts-incentives-connectivity-and-systemic-stability) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The Financial Stability Board has since included bail-ins as one of its primary components of post-crisis resolution regimes. > In earlier work without considering intervention, dense connections between financial institutions seemed to enhance financial stability, unless a shock was large enough to cause a systemic default. > An endogenous network formation model that takes into account banks&#039; anticipation of credible bail-in strategies would lead to the informed design of structural policies aimed at preventing banks from reaching a network structure, in which the government&#039;s &#039;no intervention&#039; threat fails to be credible. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77esvr/a_bailin_is_possible_when_the_losses_of_a_failing/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~231346 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **bail-in**^#2 **Financial**^#3 **network**^#4 **structure**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "58466",
"title": "",
"text": "My grace period is up in a few months, and I am not looking forward to it. I got the minimum federal aid possible for all 4 years, so I had to turn to private loans and whatever I could make over summers and what my parents could help me with. Ended up with $50k in debt, about 20k of it being with Sallie Mae. I can confirm they are bad on the collection side already. Just happened to miss a payment during school (paid off interest every month for the last 4 years), and they called me 3 times during class, sent an email, letter, and called my bilogical dad who cosigned for the loan. I can only imagine what they are like for people defaulting. All comes down to it though, have a plan when borrowing money for school. I knew my parents would only be able to help me out a little bit, and I got minimum federal aid (as in just loans) because my step father had assets that counted against me (and he told me I was on my own). So I had to figure out how to not be screwed from the beginning. I paid off my interest every month while working during school, and made sure to work hard to graduate with a good job. I can't imagine how some students feel when they graduate with nothing."
}
] |
6142 | How does stabilization work during an IPO? | [
{
"docid": "209863",
"title": "",
"text": "\"IPO's are priced so that there's a pop\"\" on the opening day.\"\" If I were IPOing my company and the price \"\"popped\"\" on the open, I would think the underwriter priced it too low. In fact if I were to IPO, I'd seek an underwriter whose offerings consistently traded on the first day pretty unchanged. That means they priced it correctly. In the 90's IPO boom, there were stocks that opened up 3X and more. The original owners must have been pretty upset as the poor pricing guidance the underwriter offered.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "396580",
"title": "",
"text": "you are exactly right. people keep going on about how facebook and their ipo is a failure etc, they are totally wrong. all of this was done for one reason only - the insiders who had all these crazy valuations and forecasts etc on paper that were not actually worth anything IRL, could cash out and get some money off the back of fools. the fb ipo was a huge success for mark zuckerburg and others - not so much a success in the real world though. sadly, this whole model and 'social networking' bubble should have 'popped' long before it got to this stage, myspace should have signaled that."
},
{
"docid": "388575",
"title": "",
"text": "While there is no legal reason to have a minimum number of employees, there can be a practical reason. They want to look like a good solid investment so that investors will give them money, which is what an IPO is, really. Hiring lots of people is part of that. Once the investors are committed, they can cut expenses by firing people again. I have no idea how common this is, but it is a possibility. However, if it were really common, investors wouldn't be fooled anymore. Also, they risk being sued for fraud over this. Even if your friend's worry is probably unfounded, you should be aware that working for a startup is always risky. They very often go bankrupt even if they try their best. They can misjudge their intended market. They can get higher expenses than expected. There can be another company with same idea being launched at the same time. Other things can go wrong. Working for a startup is a risk, but it beats being unemployed, right?"
},
{
"docid": "223383",
"title": "",
"text": "The market isn't going to come up with a cure when the largest trading firms, hedge funds, and wealthy individuals making money off HFT. They have very little incentive for ensuring the stability of the market, because they are already rich. If the market crashes and they lose money, they're still rich. There are already taxes and fees that have to be paid when people make trades. The fees that have been proposed have been fractions of a cent per share. The only way anyone would notice the fee is if they are trading a huge amount of shares during the day, every day."
},
{
"docid": "433490",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for."
},
{
"docid": "194003",
"title": "",
"text": "Sure. Even Milton Friedman called Hayek's economic work unreadable. Much of the Austrian economic foundation rests without as solid of a philosophical or mathematical foundation as most other schools of thought. I suppose the easiest way to understand this is to look at three foundational works. I recommend reading each of these anyways, but skimming, and paying attention to references, should give you a good idea of the varying levels of rigor introduced into each school of thought. [Leaf through Das Kapital](http://books.google.com/books?id=6TfTS9ITW7UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Karl+Marx%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NdrYT4yNCdLH6AHThdSoAw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=inauthor%3A%22Karl%20Marx%22&f=false) This is Marx's primary treatise. It is far older than the following two that I will present. Nevertheless, it, perhaps more than any other book, played a pivotal role in the 20th century. [Leaf through A General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money](http://books.google.com/books?id=xpw-96rynOcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22John+Maynard+Keynes%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LtrYT43YIamJ6QGuoL2cAw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=inauthor%3A%22John%20Maynard%20Keynes%22&f=false) This is the foundational work of the Keynesians. There is much more here than simply the advice to increase government spending to stabilize demand during economic downswings. And it has been probably the most widely accepted work by the greatest number of economists over the 20th century. [Leaf through the Theory of Money and Credit] (http://books.google.com/books?id=hHnIHlCm_CcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=von+mises&hl=en&sa=X&ei=59rYT4HbDKqG6QG2te2PAw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=von%20mises&f=false) This is the Austrian Treatise from Ludwig Von Mises. It is the newest of the three. It is also likely the least rigorous. But please, judge for yourself. Von Mises did do some more rigorous work in other areas. But all schools of economics ultimately rest on their theory of capital. So, before you pick which church to belong to, it's worth reading their respective bibles."
},
{
"docid": "58466",
"title": "",
"text": "My grace period is up in a few months, and I am not looking forward to it. I got the minimum federal aid possible for all 4 years, so I had to turn to private loans and whatever I could make over summers and what my parents could help me with. Ended up with $50k in debt, about 20k of it being with Sallie Mae. I can confirm they are bad on the collection side already. Just happened to miss a payment during school (paid off interest every month for the last 4 years), and they called me 3 times during class, sent an email, letter, and called my bilogical dad who cosigned for the loan. I can only imagine what they are like for people defaulting. All comes down to it though, have a plan when borrowing money for school. I knew my parents would only be able to help me out a little bit, and I got minimum federal aid (as in just loans) because my step father had assets that counted against me (and he told me I was on my own). So I had to figure out how to not be screwed from the beginning. I paid off my interest every month while working during school, and made sure to work hard to graduate with a good job. I can't imagine how some students feel when they graduate with nothing."
},
{
"docid": "10171",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To add to @keshlam's answer slightly a stock's price is made up of several components: the only one of these that is known even remotely accurately at any time is the book value on the day that the accounts are prepared. Even completed cashflows after the books have been prepared contain some slight unknowns as they may be reversed if stock is returned, for example, or reduced by unforeseen costs. Future cashflows are based on (amongst other things) how many sales you expect to make in the future for all time. Exercise for the reader: how many iPhone 22s will apple sell in 2029? Even known future cashflows have some risk attached to them; customers may not pay for goods, a supplier may go into liquidation and so need to change its invoicing strategy etc.. Estimating the risk on future cashflows is highly subjective and depends greatly on what the analyst expects the exact economic state of the world will be in the future. Investors have the choice of investing in a risk free instrument (this is usually taken as being modelled by the 10 year US treasury bond) that is guaranteed to give them a return. To invest in anything riskier than the risk free instrument they must be paid a premium over the risk free return that they would get from that. The risk premium is related to how likely they think it is that they will not receive a return higher than that rate. Calculation of that premium is highly subjective; if I know the management of the company well I will be inclined to think that the investment is far less risky (or perhaps riskier...) than someone who does not, for example. Since none of the factors that go into a share price are accurately measurable and many are subjective there is no \"\"right\"\" share price at any time, let alone at time of IPO. Each investor will estimate these values differently and so value the shares differently and their trading, based on their ever changing estimates, will move the share price to an indeterminable level. In comments to @keshlam's answer you ask if there is enough information to work out the share price if a company buys out the company before IPO. Dividing the price that this other company paid by the relative ownership structure of the firm would give you an idea of what that company thought that the company was worth at that moment in time and can be used as a surrogate for market price but it will not and cannot accurately represent the market price as other investors will value the firm differently by estimating the criteria above differently and so will move the share price based on their valuation.\""
},
{
"docid": "313695",
"title": "",
"text": "The IPO price is set between the underwriters and the specialist in the NASDAQ. There are a lot of complexities on how to get to this price, everyone is trying to pull to their own side. In the Facebook example, the price was $38 for all IPO participants. Then, once the IPO went to the secondary market, the bid/ask drove the pricing. At the secondary market the price is driven by the demand and offer of the stock. That is, people who wanted to buy right after the IPO likely drove the initial price up."
},
{
"docid": "34318",
"title": "",
"text": "Any retail equity brokerage will give you access to the NYSE, and thus Facebook shares as they become available. However, it is important to note that you nor any retail investor will be able to purchase FB at the IPO prices ($33-38 IIRC). The only people who will be able to buy in at that price are the underwriting investment banks and major investors who have subscribed to the IPO. You, and all the other retail investors will only be able to buy in as those major investors offer shares on the secondary market. This being Facebook, there will probably be a significant premium over the IPO price, both due to demand and systemic underpricing of IPOs to encourage the opening 'pop'. So, if you're intent on buying in at the IPO, pay close attention as the date approaches. Look at how the recent big IPOs have performed (GRPN, LNKD come to mind). Know how much you're willing to commit and what price you want. However, no one is going to know what the opening market price will be come Friday morning. Be watching your financial data source / analysis of choice and be prepared to make a judgement."
},
{
"docid": "255249",
"title": "",
"text": ">Why not talk about services? Why should I pay more for services. It's not like more income means I use the roads and bridges more. More income doesn't mean more kids that need public education. More income doesn't mean I use fire services more. actually it does, your ability to make more kinda depends on the ability of others to provide their skill, or their ability to purchase more or if you own a business you need the fire service to protect your business operating during/after a crisis as well as your home. this is kinda how the economy works. >If you ask me, I'd rather people just pay for the services they use. Have kids? Then you pay for their school. Drive 60 minutes to work, then you pay more than someone that drives 10 minutes. except its much cheaper for everyone if it is all bound up together, and provided by the government. seriously the arguments you are making are retarded like sitting in the back of the classroom eating glue retarded there is a reason that no country emphasis on NO COUNTRY does it the way you are saying, and that is because it was done this way a couple of hundred years ago and we moved on from that because it doesn't work as well. I understand the anti big government argument, its just that it is taken to such an extreme now that its just stupid."
},
{
"docid": "181585",
"title": "",
"text": "That doesn't explains the decade in between, the revenue sharing agreement and lawsuit, the competition before the IPO etc. They didn't have the lawsuit and final split because one branch wanted an IPO, they had it because of the revenue sharing agreement pissing off the consulting partners. Accenture does compete with the Big 4 in the consulting space, especially Deloitte and EY. Why do you think otherwise?"
},
{
"docid": "323768",
"title": "",
"text": "\"(See also the question How many stocks I can exercise per stock warrant? and my comments there). Clearly, at the prices you quote, it does not seem sensible to exercise your warrants at the moment, since you can still by \"\"units\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) and bare stock at below the $11.50 it would cost you to exercise your warrant. So when would exercising a warrant become \"\"a sensible thing to do\"\"? Obviously, if the price of the bare stock (which you say is currently $10.12) were to sufficiently exceed $11.50, then it would clearly be worth exercising a warrant and immediately selling the stock you receive (\"\"sufficiently exceed\"\" to account for any dealing costs in selling the newly-acquired stock). However, looking more closely, $11.50 isn't the correct \"\"cut-off\"\" price. Consider three of the units you bought at $10.26 each. For $30.78 you received three shares of stock and one warrant. For an additional $11.50 ($42.28 in total) you can have a total of four shares of stock (at the equivalent of $10.57 each). So, if the price of the bare stock rises above $10.57, then it could become sensible to exercise one warrant and sell four shares of stock (again allowing a margin for the cost of selling the stock). The trading price of the original unit (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) shouldn't (I believe) directly affect your decision to exercise warrants, although it would be a factor in deciding whether to resell the units you've already got. As you say, if they are now trading at $10.72, then having bought them at $10.26 you would make a profit if sold. Curiously, unless I'm missing something, or the figures you quote are incorrect, the current price of the \"\"unit\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant; $10.72) seems overpriced compared to the price of the bare stock ($10.12). Reversing the above calculation, if bare stock is trading at $10.12, then four shares would cost $40.48. Deducting the $11.50 cost-of-exercising, this would value three \"\"combined units\"\" at $28.98, or $9.66 each, which is considerably below the market price you quote. One reason the \"\"unit\"\" (1 stock + 1/3 warrant) is trading at $10.72 instead of $9.66 could be that the market believes the price of the bare share (currently $10.12) will eventually move towards or above $11.50. If that happens, the option of exercising warrants at $11.50 becomes more and more attractive. The premium presumably reflects this potential future benefit. Finally, \"\"Surely I am misunderstand the stock IPO's intent.\"\": presumably, the main intent of Social Capital was to raise as much money as possible through this IPO to fund their future activities. The \"\"positive view\"\" is that they expect this future activity to be profitable, and therefore the price of ordinary stock to go up (at least as far as, ideally way beyond) the $11.50 exercise price, and the offering of warrants will be seen as a \"\"thank you\"\" to those investors who took the risk of taking part in the IPO. A completely cynical view would be that they don't really care what happens to the stock price, but that \"\"offering free stuff\"\" (or what looks like \"\"free stuff\"\") will simply attract more \"\"punters\"\" to the IPO. In reality, the truth is probably somewhere between those two extremes.\""
},
{
"docid": "168315",
"title": "",
"text": "Assuming that the financial system broke down, not enough supply of essential commodities or food but there is political and administrative stability and no such chaos that threatens your life by physical attacks. The best investment would then be some paddy fields, land, some cows, chickens and enough clothing , a safe house to stay and a healthy life style that enables you to work for food and some virtue at heart and management skills to get people work for you on your resources so that they can survive with you (may be you earn some profit -that is up to your moral standards to decide, how much). It all begins to start again; a new Financial System has to be in place….!"
},
{
"docid": "581848",
"title": "",
"text": "During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding. Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share. Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares. This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1. Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding. A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share. It does a 1 for 10 split. Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share. It does a 10 for 1 reverse split. Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split. You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split"
},
{
"docid": "22207",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will \"\"dilute\"\" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is \"\"nominal value\"\", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say \"\"look\"\", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really \"\"survived\"\", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance.\""
},
{
"docid": "530102",
"title": "",
"text": "Valuations are literally 100% driven by retail investors who 20 years ago were literally peasants and are not grounded in reality. I'm working at a small IB in China over the summer. The IPO I'm working on is a small cnc machining company. Some of its competitors are literally trading at 100x EBITDA, growing sales at literally 5%. Nobody who is in a management position has any inkling of how finance works(not to say they're not smart, just that they have no experience)."
},
{
"docid": "397527",
"title": "",
"text": "I haven't read the paper, but have read similar papers before, will likely read this paper here in a while. I can see the use for patents to a degree. Not the way they are now, but in some form or another I think they should still exist. I am not under the delusion of they help innovate. I see them more or less as bringing stability to the marketplace/business. The changes I would like to see made, is on certain patents, or probably all patents, that they expire at a certain time. Or if the patent is not put to use in a given time frame that it falls back into the public domain. Expired patents being fully searchable online, for free. I would also disallow any patenting of genes, or anything that nature has produced and or made. If some one makes a new element, or makes an absolutely new gene that has been seen, or found any where else, then sure patent it. But something that already exists? No. I agree that patents do stifle creativity, and ultimately do harm us as a developing nation. Especially in it's current iteration. The solution I briefly went over would give a happy medium. It would do much less harm than now, and offer better innovation down the road. The stability question with relation to business/marketplace is how certain products are made and produced. Some people put a lot of time and effort into developing something and they need a little protection in doing it. 7 years or so should be enough to recoup that back and then some. After that time they can still produce said product, but would have to compete against everyone else who uses a similar design. All in all I think every one can agree that the patent/copyright system needs serious overhaul, and not because it is too weak, but it is because it was designed, and implemented in a 20th century mindset, not a 21st. It worked somewhat well in the early 1900's but since then it has not. Things move at a faster rate now than they did then. As such in this day in age it is a lot stronger than it needs to be, and needs to be dialed back in a lot of areas. It needs to be overhauled by people who know the area well, and have no financial stake in the system one way or the other. Possibly people in academia with knowledge on the system and can offer valid arguments for it's change, and help to bring in common sense reforms to the system. With how fucked up it is now, it would probably be best to just scrap the system, and design a new system from the ground up. All currently held patents now have a 7 year life span. If the patent is not in current use, you have a year to show that you are working toward using the patent, rather than just shelving it so no one else can use it."
},
{
"docid": "218837",
"title": "",
"text": "\"* SEC. So I guess you're in favor of the little guys getting screwed while Insiders trade tips on stocks? If you bothered to do any sort of research you'd realize that for the scope of its mission, the SEC is not allocated near enough to do its job. The SEC is there to ensure that all play fair, but they are underfunded. *Govt Titty. I have no idea what you are going on about. Try to stay on topic. * Sales Tax. Off-topic again, but please re-examine your exremely demented Libertarian ideals. If you like roads, water, street lights, and not getting butt-raped b/c the police rescued you, then you like State Sales tax; you just don't know it yet. And of course it's their right. WTF. * Enron. Bad example. The SEC monitors trades, so they have the ability to know how many trades an Exchange has done. Of course, they have been underfunded so they don't have enough money to monitor all of them reliably, but more funding will fix that. * Market Death. Are you drunk? No, seriously. I make posts like this when I'm drunk. If not, then please explain how you relate a person dying to an Exchange being stable & trustworthy? * Stability by Change. OK, now I'm pretty sure you are drunk. Geez, it's the middle of the day. \"\"Stability by change\"\"? Stability requires stability, not change. I'm embarrassed to even be responding to this right now.\""
},
{
"docid": "576625",
"title": "",
"text": "I think people are glossing over the type of experience you get working at a startup. Having worked at a huge multi-national corp, and now working in a basement, I would say this: Multinational corp - everything is a process. They have a documented process for damn near everything, including taking a shit. If you don't know how to do something, you have internal support or somebody around you that knows how to do it. You don't learn anything in this type of environment. You get hired for one specific job on the assembly line, and you consistently perform a set of pretty specific job functions every day. The upside is full benefits, job security, and stability. Startup - Absolute chaos. Your responsible for sales, design, implementation, production support, and late-night troubleshooting. You could be out of a job tomorrow if a single customer pulls out. But the upside is the wealth of experience you get on all aspects of business and you have to see a design from spec to production. As a young professional, I much prefer the latter. If I lose my job - so what? I'll find another one. The experience i've gotten from the startup in just under a year far exceeds the experience I got in three years at the corporation."
}
] |
6146 | Lost credit card replaced with new card and new numbers. Credit score affected? | [
{
"docid": "7403",
"title": "",
"text": "This will have no effect on your credit score. Even though your credit card account number is changing, it is still the same account, so your history of payments and age of accounts will remain unchanged."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "219181",
"title": "",
"text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month."
},
{
"docid": "591714",
"title": "",
"text": "The two factors that will hurt you the most is the age of the credit account, and your available credit to debt ratio. Removing an older account takes that account out of the equation of calculating your overall credit score, which can hurt significantly, especially if that is the only, or one of just a couple, of open credit lines you have available. Reducing your available credit will make your current debt look bigger than what it was before you closed your account. Going over a certain percentage for your debt to available credit can make you look less favorable to lenders. [As stated above, closing a credit card does remove it from the credit utilization calculation which can raise your debt/credit ratio. It does not, however; affect the average age of credit cards. Even closed accounts stay on your credit report for ten years and are credited toward average age of cards. When the closed credit card falls off your report, only then, will the average age of credit cards be recalculated.] And may I suggest getting your free credit report from https://www.annualcreditreport.com . It's the only place considered 'official' to receive your free annual credit report as told by the FTC. Going to other 3rd party sites to pull your credit report can risk your information being traded or sold. EDIT: To answer your second point, there are numerous factors that banks and creditors will consider depending on the type of card you're applying for. The heavier the personal rewards (cash back, flyer miles, discounts, etc.) the bigger the stipulation. Some factors to consider are your income to debt ratio, income to available credit ratio, number of revolving lines of credit, debt to available credit ratio, available credit to debt ratio, and whether or not you have sufficient equity and/or assets to cover both your debt and available credit. They want to make sure that if you go crazy and max out all of your lines of credit, that you are capable of paying it all back in a sufficient amount of time. In other words, your volatility as a debt-consumer."
},
{
"docid": "246896",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no central government signature database. (at least not in the US, and at least not yet) For debit and credit card transactions, the merchant may check the signature on your reciept against the signature on back of the card. This is intended to verify that you didn't steal the card. So, if you want to change the signature on the back of the card, all you need to do is get a new card and re-sign it. Your card has an expiration date. When that happens, you will get a new card to re-sign. If your card expires soon, you can just wait. If you are impatient, you can call your bank and ask for a new card. If they give you a lot of grief about issuing a new card (it is an unusual request), you can tell them you lost your card and need a new one. In that case they will typically disable the old card and issue a new one with a new account number. Note that if you want to change how you sign your name, there are some other places you should also update: Also, keep in mind that people's signatures naturally drift over time. This fact is generally understood and accepted by people who check signatures."
},
{
"docid": "408763",
"title": "",
"text": "You can improve your credit score simply by being an authorized user on someone's credit card account. They don't even physically have to give you a card to use, they can just add you to the account as an authorized user and your credit score will be affected. Be forewarned though, it can be negatively impacted as well. Only participate in such a scheme if it's with someone trustworthy and reliable."
},
{
"docid": "444748",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I answered a similar question, How will going from 75% Credit Utilization to 0% Credit Utilization affect my credit score?, in which I show a graph of how utilization impacts your score. In another answer to Should I keep a credit card open to maintain my credit score?, I discuss the makeup of your score. From your own view at Credit Karma, you can see that age of accounts will help your score, so now is the time to get the right cards and stay with them. My background is technology (electrical engineer) and MBA with a concentration in finance. I'm not a Psychology major. If one is undisciplined, credit can destroy them. If one is disciplined, and pays in full each month, credit is a tool. The quoting of billionaires is a bit disingenuous. I've seen people get turned away at hotels for lack of a credit card. $1000 in cash would not get them into a $200/night room. Yes, a debit card can be used, but the rental car and hotel \"\"reserve\"\" a large amount on the card, so if you don't have a high balance, you may be out of town and out of luck. I'll quote another oft-quoted guru: \"\"no one gets rich on credit card rewards.\"\" No, but I'm on track to pay for my 13 year old's last semester in college with the rewards from a card that goes right into her account. It will be great to make that withdrawal and not need to take the funds from anywhere else. The card has no fee, and I've not paid them a dime in interest. By the way, with 1-20% utilization ideal, you want your total available credit to be 5X the highest monthly balance you'd every hit. Last - when you have a choice between 2% cash reward, and the cash discount Kevin manages, take the discount, obviously.\""
},
{
"docid": "516780",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Summarized article: Barnes & Noble Inc. revealed on Wednesday that the tampering of PIN pad devices in 63 of its stores was a well-organized scheme to steal financial information. Criminals had planted a \"\"bug\"\" on a single PIN pad device at each store to capture credit card and PIN numbers. Affected stores were found in California, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Once Barnes & Noble learned of the breach on September 14, the bookseller halted use of PIN pad devices in its 700 stores. The retailer's College Bookstores were not affected. Barnes & Noble is currently working with the FBI and with banks and payment card brands to identify accounts that may have been compromised. * For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit\""
},
{
"docid": "204982",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you are interpreting their recommended numbers incorrectly. They are not suggesting that you get 13-21 credit cards, they are saying that your score could get 13-21 points higher based on having a large number of credit cards and loans. Unfortunately, the exact formula for calculating your credit score is not known, so its hard to directly answer the question. But I wouldn't go opening 22+ credit cards just to get this part of the number higher!"
},
{
"docid": "2018",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As i see it, with a debit card, they are taken kinda out of the game. They are not lending money, it seems really bad for them. Not exactly. It is true that they're not lending money, but they charge a hefty commission from the retailers for each swipe which is pure profit with almost no risk. One of the proposals considered (or maybe approved already, don't know) in Congress is to cap that hefty commission, which will really make the debit cards merely a service for the checking account holder, rather than a profit maker for the bank. On the other hand, it's definitely good for individuals. I disagree with that. Debit cards are easier to use than checks, but they provide much less protection than credit cards. Here's what I had to say on this a while ago, and seems like the community agrees. But, why do we really need a credit history to buy some of the more expensive stuff Because the system is broken. It rewards people in debt by giving them more opportunities to get into even more debts, while people who owe nothing to noone cannot get a credit when they do need one. With the current system the potential creditor can only asses the risk of someone who has debt already, they have no way of assessing risks of someone with no debts. To me, all this credit card system seems like an awfully nice way to make loads of money, backed by governments as well. Well, credit cards have nothing to do with it. It's the credit scores system that is broken. If we replace the \"\"card\"\" with \"\"score\"\" in your question - then yes, you're thinking correctly. That of course is true for the US, in other countries I have no knowledge on how the creditors assess the risks.\""
},
{
"docid": "297274",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would recommend putting it on a credit card, just not your current credit card. Run a Google search for \"\"credit cards with good signup bonuses\"\" and you will potentially come across these links: http://www.cardrates.com/advice/11-best-signup-bonus-credit-cards/ https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/top-credit-cards/best-credit-card-offers/ There are cards out there which can qualify you to: The $150 back on a $500 purchase is an instant 30% ROI. The best stock options couldn't guarantee you that kind of return. You will instantly meet the criteria and get $150 + $25 (1% cash back on the full $2,500) The only stipulation is that in order to fully benefit from the rewards, you must pay off the card in full when your bill comes in or else you will pay steep interest. After a year or so you can cancel the card. If you want, sign up for two or three cards and split the payment. Reap the rewards from multiple credit cards. I wish I had done this with my college tuition; it was a tough pill to swallow when I forked over $3,000 at the registrar's office for one semester :-( I had the potential to realize a savings of $900 in one semester alone. Would have been nice to apply such a kickback against buying my books. If you work things out correctly then you can save 30% ($750) on your total purchase. That's one way to not run yourself dry. Disclaimer: By following these steps you will be triggering at least one hard inquiry against your credit. Each hard inquiry has the potential to lower your credit rating. If you do not plan to use your score to apply for any major loans (e.g. car or house) then this reduction in credit will have basically no impact on your day-to-day life. Assuming you continue using your credit responsibly then your credit should just bounce right back to where it was in no time. I know there are many people out there that cherish their score and relish in the fact that it is so high but it's for moments like these that make it worthwhile to \"\"spend\"\" your credit score. It's an inanimate number whose sole purpose is to be \"\"spent\"\" in times like these.\""
},
{
"docid": "23016",
"title": "",
"text": "While one credit provider (or credit reference agency) might score you in one way, others may score you differently including treating different things that contribute to your score differently. Different credit providers may also not see all of your credit score as potentially some data may not be available to all credit suppliers. Further too many searches may trigger systems that recognise behavior that is a sign of possible fraudulent activity (such as applying for many items of credit in a short space of time). Whether this would directly affect a score or trigger manual checks is also likely to vary. In situations like this a person could have applied for (say) a dozen credit cards, with all the credit checks being performed before there is any credit history for any of those dozen cards."
},
{
"docid": "345697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "554573",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest reason to protect your credit card number is for your personal convenience. Replacing cards, even if there is no immediate dollar-consequence, is time consuming, so there IS a cost unless you do not assign value to your time. Additionally, repeated fraud may cause your financial institution to decide you're an above-average fraud risk and close your account. This costs more time and credit checks, etc., to apply for a new card."
},
{
"docid": "539859",
"title": "",
"text": "In general, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts -- which is what credit accounts are -- so an individually held card is probably not an option for you right now. You will not be approved for a credit card because you are minor. The only option credit card wise for you is for your parents to add you on as an authorized user onto their accounts. The upside is that you and your parents can work out a monthly payment for the amount you spend on your equipment, the downside is that if your parents don't pay their credit card bill, your credit score/report can be negatively affected. (This also depends on the bank, however, all the banks I bank with report monthly payment activities on authorized users' credit reports as well. There might be a bank that doesn't.) In terms of credit cards, there is nothing you can do. What you could do as the comments have suggested is either save up money for the equipment you want, or buy something cheaper."
},
{
"docid": "61968",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on your definition of \"\"inactive\"\". If you have credit cards open and do not use them at all for a period of time, some lenders will not update your usage to the credit bureaus while some will close your account in which will definitely hurt your credit score. But since you use your card once in a while and pay them off, you should be good. Lenders like to see some activity rather than no activity. If there are great offers out there by credit card companies, then why not take advantage of them? The only downside may be the annual fees if there is any but with your credit score, it implies you are financially responsible so there should be no 'compelling financial reason' to not open more cards. In fact, the number of credit accounts you have open can play a role on your score. Essentially the more the better. According to Credit Karma, 0-5 credit accounts is very poor, 6-10 is poor, 11-20 is good, 21+ is excellent.\""
},
{
"docid": "504293",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge)."
},
{
"docid": "192641",
"title": "",
"text": "It may or may not be a good idea to borrow money from your family; there are many factors to consider here, not the least of which is what you would do if you got in serious financial trouble and couldn't make your scheduled payments on the loan. Would you arrange with them to sell the property ASAP? Or could they easily manage for a few months without your scheduled payments if it were necessary? A good rule of thumb that some people follow when lending to family is this: don't do it unless you're 100% OK with the possibility that they might not pay you back at all. That said, your question was about credit scores specifically. Having a mortgage and making on-time payments would factor into your score, but not significantly more heavily than having revolving credit (eg a credit card) and making on time payments, or having a car loan or installment loan and making on time payments. I bought my house in 2011, and after years of paying the mortgage on time my credit score hasn't changed at all. MyFico has a breakdown of factors affecting your credit score here: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx. The most significant are a history of on-time payments, low revolving credit utilization (carrying a $4900 balance on a card with a $5000 limit is bad, carrying a $10 balance on the same card is good), and overall length of your credit history. As to credit mix, they have this to say: Types of credit in use Credit mix determines 10% of my FICO Score The FICO® Score will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. It's not necessary to have one of each, and it's not a good idea to open credit accounts you don’t intend to use. The credit mix usually won’t be a key factor in determining your FICO Score—but it will be more important if your credit report does not have a lot of other information on which to base a score. Have credit cards – but manage them responsibly Having credit cards and installment loans with a good payment history will raise your FICO Score. People with no credit cards tend to be viewed as a higher risk than people who have managed credit cards responsibly."
},
{
"docid": "302823",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's another rational reason: Discount. This typically works only in smaller stores, where you're talking directly to the owners, but it is sometimes possible to negotiate a few percent off the price when paying by check, since otherwise they'd have to give a few percent to the credit card company. (Occasionally the sales reps at larger stores have the authority to cut this deal, but it's far less common.) Not worth worrying about on small items, but if you're making a large purchase (a bedroom suite, for example) it can pay for lunch. And sometimes the store's willing to give you more discount than that, simply because with checks they don't have to worry about chargebacks or some of the other weirdnesses that can occur in credit card processing. Another reason: Nobody's very likely to steal you check number and try to write themselves a second check or otherwise use it without authorization. It's just too easy to steal credit card info these days to make printing checks worth the effort. But, in the end, the real answer is that there's no rational reason not to use checks. So it takes you a few seconds more to complete the transaction. What were you going to do with those seconds that makes them valuable? Especially if they're seconds that the store is spending bagging your purchase, so there's no lost time... and the effort really isn't all that different from signing the credit card authorization. Quoting Dean Inge: \"\"There are two kinds of fool. One says 'this is old, and therefore good.' The other says 'this is new, and therefore better.'\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "245729",
"title": "",
"text": "Credit scores in the U.S. are entirely based on information contained in your credit report. The details of your credit card transactions, such as where your individual purchases are from, the amount of individual purchases, refunds, chargebacks (successful or failed), etc. do not appear on your credit report. Therefore, they can have no impact on your credit score. According to creditsavvy.com.au, credit scores in Australia are based on similar information: the information in your credit history, credit profile, and credit applications. I don't see anything that would suggest that the details of your transactions would affect your credit score."
},
{
"docid": "166875",
"title": "",
"text": "'Perfect' credit would be defined by your credit score. You may have a perfect repayment history, but that is only one factor in your credit score. Paying off a loan early doesn't by itself cause your score to go down. A lack of history, however, will result in a lower score. Lenders use the score because the general consensus is that what you have done in the past is the best indicator of what you will do in the future. In essence, your credit score tells a potential creditor what type of risk they are taking by lending you money. If you have very little history, the risk is not necessarily higher, but it is less predictable, so you have a lower score. These pages explain what makes up your credit score: http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/ https://www.cnbc.com/id/36737279 https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/help/5-parts-components-fico-credit-score-6000.php"
}
] |
6146 | Lost credit card replaced with new card and new numbers. Credit score affected? | [
{
"docid": "160125",
"title": "",
"text": "The true answer is it depends because it is up to the credit card issuer to follow the right path when issuing a replacement credit card. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/will-replacement-card-hurt-my-score.aspx Typically, issuers will transfer the account history to the new trade line, says Barry Paperno, the consumer operations manager at FICO, the creator of the FICO scoring formula. The new account should have the old open date, so you should retain your payment history, he says. The credit limit and balance should also stay the same. http://blog.credit.com/2014/02/lost-or-stolen-credit-card-hurt-your-credit-scores-76724/ How Issuers Report Replacement Cards We asked the major card issuers how they report replacement cards to credit reporting agencies: American Express: The new card has the same open date and “Member Since” year as the previous card. The balance on the old account number is transferred to the new account number. All payment history transfers over. Bank of America: All transactions and account history are transferred to the new account number when there is a card replacement or renewal. Capital One: The new account number with all the original account data (original open date, etc.) is reported along with a notification to the bureaus that the new account number is replacing the old. The two tradelines can then be ‘merged’ into one, so that all the applicable payment history, balance, etc. is now under the new account number. Chase: The original tradeline does not change. The history on the account remains, just the account number field is updated with the new account number. There is no “new” tradeline in this scenario."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "459695",
"title": "",
"text": "These kinds of credit card offers are incredibly common. More often you will get a certain reward if you spend $X within Y days of getting the card. In many cases you can take advantage of them with very little downside. However, are you responsible enough to have a credit card and be able to pay off the balance every month? If not the interest charges could quickly wipe out the $50 bonus you get. And hard inquiries and new accounts could potentially affect your credit score, particularly if you don't have a well-established credit history. There's also the chance you get denied in which case you add a hard inquiry to your credit report for no gain."
},
{
"docid": "190225",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you."
},
{
"docid": "386668",
"title": "",
"text": "These are the things to focus on... do not put yourself in debt with a car, there are other better solutions. 1) Get a credit card (Unless you already have one) -Research this and get the best cash back or points card you can get at the best rate. - Start with buying gas and groceries every month do not run the balance up. - Pay the card off every single month. (THIS IS IMPORTANT) - Never carry a balance above 25% of your credit limit. - Every 8 months or so call your credit card company and ask for a credit line increase. They should be able to do this WITHOUT pulling your credit you are only looking for the automatic increment that they can automatically approve. This will help increase your available credit and will help keep your credit utilization low. Only do this is you are successfully doing the other bullet points above. 2) Pay all of your bills on time, this includes everything from water, electricity, phone bill, etc. never be late. Setup automatic payments if you can. 3) Minimize the number of hard credit inquiries. -This is particularly important when you are looking for your mortgage lender. Do not let them pull your credit automatically. You should be able to provide them your credit score and other information and get quotes from those lenders. Do not let them tell you then can't do this... they can. 4)Strategically plan when you close a credit line, closing them will do two things, lower your credit limit often times increasing your credit utilization, and it may hurt your average age of credit. Open one credit card and keep it forever. *Note: Credit Karma is a great tool, you should check your score monthly and see how your efforts are influencing your score. I also like Citi credit cards because they will provide you monthly with your FICO Score which Credit Karma will only provide TransUnion and Equifax. This is educational information and you should consider talking to a banker/lender who can also give you more detailed instructions on how to get your credit improved so that they can approve you for a loan. Many people can get their score above 720 in 1-2 years time going from no credit doing the steps described above. It does take time be patient and don't fall for gimmicks."
},
{
"docid": "256921",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the other question, the OP had posted a screenshot (circa 2010) from Transunion with suggestions on how to improve the OP's credit score. One of these suggestions was to obtain \"\"retail revolving accounts.\"\" By this, they are referring to credit accounts from a particular retail store. Stores have been offering credit accounts for many years, and today, this usually takes the form of a store credit card. The credit card does not have the Visa or MasterCard logo on it, and is only valid at that particular store. (For example, Target has their own credit card that only works at Target stores.) The \"\"revolving\"\" part simply means that it is an open account that you can continue to make new charges and pay off, as opposed to a fixed retail financing loan (such as you might get at a high-end furniture store, where you obtain a loan for a single piece of furniture, and when it is paid off, the account is closed). The formula for credit scores are proprietary secrets. However, I haven't read anything that indicates that a store credit card helps your credit score more than a standard credit card. I suspect that Transunion was offering this tip in an attempt to give the consumer more ideas of how to add credit cards to their account that the consumer might not have thought of. But it is possible that buried deep in the credit score formula, there is something in there that gives you a higher score if you have a store credit card. As an aside, the OP in the other question had a credit score of 766 and was trying to make it higher. In my opinion, this is pointless. Remember that the financial services industry has an incentive to sell you as much debt as possible, and so all of their advice will point to you getting more credit accounts and getting more in debt.\""
},
{
"docid": "539859",
"title": "",
"text": "In general, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts -- which is what credit accounts are -- so an individually held card is probably not an option for you right now. You will not be approved for a credit card because you are minor. The only option credit card wise for you is for your parents to add you on as an authorized user onto their accounts. The upside is that you and your parents can work out a monthly payment for the amount you spend on your equipment, the downside is that if your parents don't pay their credit card bill, your credit score/report can be negatively affected. (This also depends on the bank, however, all the banks I bank with report monthly payment activities on authorized users' credit reports as well. There might be a bank that doesn't.) In terms of credit cards, there is nothing you can do. What you could do as the comments have suggested is either save up money for the equipment you want, or buy something cheaper."
},
{
"docid": "354618",
"title": "",
"text": "Great question. First, my recommendation would be for you to get a card that does not have a yearly fee. There are many credit cards out there that provide cash back on your purchases or points to redeem for gift cards or other items. Be sure to cancel the credit card that you have now so you don't forget about that yearly fee. Canceling will have a temporary impact on your credit score if the credit card is your longest held line of credit. Second, it is recommended not to use more than 20% of all the available credit, staying above that line can affect your credit score. I think that is what you are hearing about running up large balances on your credit card. If you are worried about staying below the 20% line, you can always request a larger line of credit. Just keep paying it off each month though and you will be fine. You already have a history of credit if you have begun paying off your student loans."
},
{
"docid": "420622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This isn't so much a legal issue, the prohibition on giving discounts was written into the merchant agreements that most of the major credit card companies enforced on businesses that accepted their credit cards. That is, until the recent Financial Reform Bill (2010) passed Congress. It changes everything. (The logic on this is a little convoluted, so read carefully) Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from requiring a minimum purchase amount to use a credit card. Meaning: That if merchants want to, they can now stop taking credit cards for a $4 latte. Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from giving discounts for cash. Here is an article with a lot more detail: Financial Reform Bill Good News for Credit Card Holders Here is a link to the actual bill details and content: HR 4173 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Here is the relevant part: This subsection is supposed to take affect \"\"at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.\"\" In other words, July 21st, 2011.\""
},
{
"docid": "345697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "61968",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on your definition of \"\"inactive\"\". If you have credit cards open and do not use them at all for a period of time, some lenders will not update your usage to the credit bureaus while some will close your account in which will definitely hurt your credit score. But since you use your card once in a while and pay them off, you should be good. Lenders like to see some activity rather than no activity. If there are great offers out there by credit card companies, then why not take advantage of them? The only downside may be the annual fees if there is any but with your credit score, it implies you are financially responsible so there should be no 'compelling financial reason' to not open more cards. In fact, the number of credit accounts you have open can play a role on your score. Essentially the more the better. According to Credit Karma, 0-5 credit accounts is very poor, 6-10 is poor, 11-20 is good, 21+ is excellent.\""
},
{
"docid": "35625",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Two factors that positively your credit score are the number of open accounts you have in good standing, and the average age of the accounts. The more accounts you have in good standing, the more likely you seem to pay back what you borrow from new creditors. The older the average age of the accounts, the more you seem like an experienced borrower who has had many years of successful credit activity. Closing them would lower the total number of accounts in good standing you have, and would also likely lower the average account age (unless you've recently opened them). To \"\"simplify the number of cards you have\"\", pick the one or two you would consider cancelling (worst rewards/benefits, highest yearly fee, etc.) and just don't keep them in your wallet anymore. You don't have to worry about paying them off every month (because you don't buy anything with them) and you still get the credit score benefits of having the accounts open.\""
},
{
"docid": "2018",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As i see it, with a debit card, they are taken kinda out of the game. They are not lending money, it seems really bad for them. Not exactly. It is true that they're not lending money, but they charge a hefty commission from the retailers for each swipe which is pure profit with almost no risk. One of the proposals considered (or maybe approved already, don't know) in Congress is to cap that hefty commission, which will really make the debit cards merely a service for the checking account holder, rather than a profit maker for the bank. On the other hand, it's definitely good for individuals. I disagree with that. Debit cards are easier to use than checks, but they provide much less protection than credit cards. Here's what I had to say on this a while ago, and seems like the community agrees. But, why do we really need a credit history to buy some of the more expensive stuff Because the system is broken. It rewards people in debt by giving them more opportunities to get into even more debts, while people who owe nothing to noone cannot get a credit when they do need one. With the current system the potential creditor can only asses the risk of someone who has debt already, they have no way of assessing risks of someone with no debts. To me, all this credit card system seems like an awfully nice way to make loads of money, backed by governments as well. Well, credit cards have nothing to do with it. It's the credit scores system that is broken. If we replace the \"\"card\"\" with \"\"score\"\" in your question - then yes, you're thinking correctly. That of course is true for the US, in other countries I have no knowledge on how the creditors assess the risks.\""
},
{
"docid": "326094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""
},
{
"docid": "88637",
"title": "",
"text": "Clark Howard suggests you hop your cards. Get your new card now and when you have it, dump the card with the high fees. The age of your accounts has some impact on your credit rating, but unless you have a major purchase coming up and your score is teetering, I would take the score hit to save money on the card."
},
{
"docid": "346852",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I don't think credit cards support depositing money into to begin with. Anyone could deposit money to a Credit Card acccount. All they need is your bank's name, Visa/Mastercard, and 16 digit number. It is done through the \"\"Pay Bills / Make Payments\"\" function in online banking. So tell me, what does it mean that PayPal will transfer the money to my VISA card You can use the new balance for spending via Credit Card, the effect is same as making a payment from your chequing account to credit card account. Will it simply just get transferred to my bank account by the local bank after that Some banks would refund the excess amount from your Credit Card to your Chequing Account after a while, but most don't. People keep credit balance on credit card to make a purchaes larger than credit limit. For example, if your credit limit is $1000, balance is $0, and you made $500 payment to the credit card, you can make a purchase of $1500 without asking for credit limit increase.\""
},
{
"docid": "562378",
"title": "",
"text": "The number that really matters in this situation is your age of your longest account. Opening a new account is a good idea, but closing an old one may have an impact on your score if you have no other active accounts. If you have another card, or an overdraft line of credit or a car loan that is 4 or 5 years old, you won't see a big impact. I'd suggest calling the card company and asking them to waive the fee. They usually will. In the meantime, I would recommending having one card from each of the major networks. (MC, Visa, Discover, Amex) so you don't run into this again. Just don't open them all at once."
},
{
"docid": "188903",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am interested in seeing what happens to your report after you test this, but I don't think it's possible in practice, would not affect your credit score, and also wouldn't be worth it for you to carry a negative balance like that. Having a -1% credit utilization essentially means that you are lending the credit card company money, which isn't really something that the credit card companies \"\"do\"\". They would likely not accept an agreement where you are providing the credit to them. Having credit is a more formal agreement than just 'I paid you too much this month'. Even if your payment does post before the transaction and it says you have a negative balance and gets reported to the credit bureau like that, this would probably get flagged for human review, and a negative credit utilization doesn't really reflect what is happening. Credit utilization is 'how much do you owe / amount of credit available to you', and it's not really correct to say that you owe negative dollars. Carrying a negative balance like that is money that could be invested elsewhere. My guess is that the credit card company is not paying you the APR of your card on the amount they owe you (if they are please provide the name of your card!). They probably don't pay you anything for that negative balance and it's money that's better used elsewhere. Even if it does benefit your credit score you're losing out on any interest (each month!) you could have earned with that money to get maybe 1-2% better rate on your next home or car loan (when will that be?). TLDR: I think credit utilization approaches a limit at 0% because it's based on the amount you owe and you don't really owe negative dollars. I am very interested in seeing the results of this experiment, please update us when you find out!\""
},
{
"docid": "192589",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Go ahead, switch banks (and checking accounts) as often as you like. It won't affect your credit score since any credit check will be a \"\"soft pull\"\" (unless you're establishing a credit card or loan -- or overdraft protection, then it could be a \"\"hard pull\"\" that could affect your credit score). Bad karma? Hardly. Unethical? Absolutely not. You don't owe them anything. Practically speaking, it'd be easier just to switch once to a bank that has a fee structure you can live with -- as long as they don't change the rules on you.\""
},
{
"docid": "390598",
"title": "",
"text": "Since recent changes to credit scoring (July 2017) it may not be necassary to do this, as more emphasis is placed on having a timely payment history and less emphasis is placed on having a low credit utilization ratio. Using what’s known as trended data is the biggest change. The phrase means credit scores will take into account the trajectory of a borrower’s debts on a month-to-month basis. In fact, having a low credit utilization ratio may even negatively effect you (if your available credit line value is high): ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source"
},
{
"docid": "470024",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest reason that they are a bad idea is just because every credit application hurts your credit score, as does having too many cards. In addition, every new card is a greater risk of identity theft."
}
] |
6199 | How can all these countries owe so much money? Why & where did they borrow it from? | [
{
"docid": "414693",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England \"\"was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy.\"\" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the \"\"safest\"\" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates. Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they \"\"collectively owe more money than can exist\"\", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "7712",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money."
},
{
"docid": "344165",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Banks use the money for productive pursuits, earning returns in excess of what they will owe the fed in discount interest. If a bank could not yield a return greater than their interest due their lender (whether that lender is the fed or not) they probably wouldn't borrow in the first place. EDIT: I misunderstood the question. The federal reserve does not disseminate new money by making loans. They do so by issuing and trading in bonds. The US Treasury, for example, issues a bond. The Federal Reserve Bank buys this bond using money they \"\"printed\"\". So the same question applies.... where does the money come from to pay the interest on the bond? It comes from the perpetual issuance and trading in bonds at a growing rate. All the fed needs to do is to buy bonds at a rate faster than they collect interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "142110",
"title": "",
"text": "\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\""
},
{
"docid": "487438",
"title": "",
"text": "Ripped off may be too strong as it implies intent - I'm hopeful it's just bad logic or terminology. I would say better agreements would be: Borrowing money from family/friends is always risky. If you and your parents are comfortable with the situation and can reliably keep records of how much is owed at any given time (and how much of the $500/mo is interest) then the loan might be a good option. If not, and your parents don't need the income stream from the loan, then I would recommend the second option since it's much cleaner. In any case, make sure everything is in writing and the proper legal procedures are followed (just as if you had borrowed the money from a bank). That means either filing a mortgage with the county for option 1 or having both parties on the deed, and having the ownership percentages in writing."
},
{
"docid": "21325",
"title": "",
"text": "A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt)."
},
{
"docid": "273387",
"title": "",
"text": "\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \"\"live within our means\"\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\""
},
{
"docid": "546187",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater. Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just \"\"renovate\"\" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K. Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood. If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value. People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount. If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan. The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value. It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost. Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow. It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for.\""
},
{
"docid": "547636",
"title": "",
"text": "In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors. So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it. So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe. A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable. If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase. However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value. Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost. If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k. Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio. So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property. After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%. Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k. Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value. Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern. Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing. Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default. In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back. Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you. Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line."
},
{
"docid": "457338",
"title": "",
"text": "Based on these dates in your question: Going back over my records, I was able to recall the following: Maryland realized recently that on the 2009 Federal 1040 Form you stated that on December 31 2009 you liven in Maryland. They are wondering where the state tax form is. DC, MD and VA due to reciprocity collect income tax based on where you live not where you work. So when you moved in August 2009 and again in August 2010 you needed to file new state versions of the W4. The fact you did or didn't submit to your employer a correct state W-4 is not directly related, because you would owe the tax regardless. The W-4 just makes sure that something close to the correct amounts are withheld and sent to the appropriate state capital. I seem to remember something about not having to pay Maryland state taxes since I not only lived in the state for less than 6 months but also did not work in the state. The reciprocity between DC, MD and VA says that Maryland gets the money because that is where you lived. The last time I had to do a part year the law was that they would forgive a half a month. In other words if you move in late December or early January you could ignore that small time period and avoid having to file in two states. In some cases people argue that some short term moves were never meant to be permanent. You might be able to claim that except the fact that your 2009 federal tax form you most likely claimed you lived in Maryland. The next issue is time and money. If Maryland says you owe them money for that time period, and if they still have the ability to force you to pay it; This is where the issue of correct state W-4 comes in. If the money during the period you lived in Maryland was sent to Virginia, you should have had that money refunded by Richmond in the spring of 2010. But if there was no W-4 filed with your employer that would mean that Maryland didn't get any money for 2009. If you didn't tell Richmond you moved in 2009 they may not have refunded everything because they thought you lived there all year. Because of the time that has passed it may be too late to fix your Virginia filing, so they may not refund you excess payment to them. Maryland is interested in calculating how much you should have paid them in 2009. They are only looking at what you told the feds you made, and they may be assuming that you lived there the whole year. But until you file correctly that have no ability to calculate what you really owe. You need professional advice. You need to know what they can and can't collect. You also need to know what you can and can't get back from Richmond. And since it also may impact your filings for 2010 you will want to get that resolved at the same time."
},
{
"docid": "486440",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\""
},
{
"docid": "365597",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For person A to be protected (meaning able to recover some or all of the money should the other party try to welsh on the deal), the two of them must have entered into a valid, binding contract where both parties acknowledge and agree to the debt and the terms. Such a contract is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a collection of laws governing contracts which is mostly borrowed from English common law. The basics are that in all cases, a \"\"contract\"\" is only formed when both parties agree, technically when one party accepts an offer made by the other party. Both the offer and acceptance must be made sincerely. For a contract, once entered, to be enforceable, proof of the contract's existence and terms must itself exist. Certain types of transactions (real estate, large amounts of money) require contracts to be in written form, and witnessed by a trusted third party (in most cases this party is required to be a notary public). And contracts must have a certain amount of quid-pro-quo; contracts that provide a unilateral benefit can be thrown out on a case-by-case basis. A contract that simply states that Person B owes Person A money, without stating what benefit Person A had provided Person B in return for the money (in this case A gives B the money to begin with), is unenforceable. The benefits must of course be legal on both sides; a contract to deliver 5 tons of cocaine will not be upheld by any court in any free country, and neither will any contract attempting to enforce hush money, kickbacks, bribery etc (though some toe the line; one could argue that a signing bonus is tantamount to bribery). In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like \"\"escape clauses\"\" allowing one party a \"\"free out\"\", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on \"\"finance charges\"\" for debts not owed to a \"\"bank\"\" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States). This is HUGE for your example, because if Person A had specified an interest rate in excess of the allowed rate for non-bank lenders, not only will the contract get thrown out even though Person B agreed to the terms, but Person A could find themselves on the hook for punitive damages payable to Person B, FAR in excess of the contracted amount. Given that the agreement meets all tests of validity for a contract, if either party fails to perform in accordance with the contract, causing a loss or \"\"tort\"\" for the other party, the injured party can sue. Generally the two options are \"\"strict performance\"\" (the injuring party is ordered by the court to comply exactly with the terms of the contract), or payment of net actual damages and dissolution of the contract. In your example, if Person A had lent Person B money, strict performance would mean payment of the debt in the installments agreed, at the rate agreed; actual damages would be payment of the outstanding balance plus current interest charges (without any further penalty). Notice that it's \"\"net\"\" damages; if Person A was to issue the loan in installments, and missed one, causing Person B to suffer damages from the loss of expected cash flow directly resulting in their failure to pay according to the terms, then Person B's proven damages are subtracted from A's; very often, the plaintiff in a suit to recover money can end up owing the defendant for a prior failure to perform. There are further laws governing bankruptcy; basically, if the other person cannot satisfy the contract and cannot pay damages, they will pay what they can, and the contract is terminated with prejudice (\"\"no blood from a turnip\"\").\""
},
{
"docid": "163711",
"title": "",
"text": "If the homeowner knows the situation is hopeless, and the end result will be the loss of the home, jumping to the end result can be helpful. It is quicker, they don't spend as much time fighting a losing battle. Deed in Lieu of foreclosure is not so great for the borrower if the bank goes after them for the rest of the money owed. There can also be tax implications if the debt is forgiven. Though these issues also exist when the drawn out foreclosure option is done. For the bank. The longer the process the more the house deteriorates. The borrower may stop maintenance and may even vandalize the house. Getting their lock on the door quickly is important to them. They protect it, clean it, and prep it for sale right away. They also save on lawyer fees. They know that the moment they start the foreclosure process all money from the borrower stops, this can save thousands in carrying costs. One issue will be how the accounting losses will be divided among the servicing company, and the investors. If the servicing company will make more money from the longer process they may not push for the quick settlement. If the opposite is true, they will be quickly on board. For the new buyer, the issue with either foreclosure is that the longer process can result in greater hidden and visible damage. The heat pump may work, but the disgruntled homeowner stopped changing the filters the last six months. They may have also removed and damaged things on the way out. Other than that I don't see a big difference. Because the bank had lower costs involved in the foreclosure they might settle for a lower purchase price, but that might be hard to know."
},
{
"docid": "392041",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph: this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis. Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the \"\"PIGS\"\" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis.\""
},
{
"docid": "283657",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right. A Target charge doesn't indicate whether you bought some oil for the car or cold medicine or a lock for the cabinet door that broke. But when you pay for each of these things under the right account, you do know how the money is allocated. Doing it this way requires little discipline. Before you put the item in the basket, you just ask yourself, is this a want or a need (which is something you should be doing anyway). If it's a need, is it for my car, house, or body. The house is what I use if i can't figure it out (like paying for the renewal of my professional license). that's it! You have to stand at the register for longer but so what. If you are spending all your salary and you stop when you have no more money (assuming you've run through all of your savings, which you will soon if you don't change), then you have no more money to spend. So if you are honest when you put things in the basket(need vs want), you are going to run out of spending money real quick. Your spending money account will be empty but you will still have food money. Set your debit card up so that it denies your charge if you dont have enough money. Once you realize how much you truly spend for needs in each category, yoy will only put that much in each account. Therefore, You can't use the house card to just \"\"borrow\"\" from it till next month. If you do, you won't be able to pay your bills. If you have so little discipline that you knowingly spend your bill money, then there is a deeper issue going on than just finding the right budgeting/cash flow system for you. Something is seriously wrong and you need to seek professional help. When someone is trying to help you, the first step is to determine what category you are spending too much in. Then when you realize it's the house category, for example, you will need to figure out why you are spending so much in that category. A bank statement wont tell you that. So you can do what we did. On every receipt --before you walk out of the store-- write down what each purchase is on the receipt. Then you can hand over the receipts to whoever is helping you. Most items are easily recognizable on the receipt so you wont have to write everything down. you should be doing this for insurance purposes anyway. Again, if your receipt is so blooming long that this is onerous, probably everything you just spent is not a need and maybe you need to turn right around and return stuff. Maybe you need to go to the store more often so there are only a few purchases on each receipt. Groceries are groceries. You don't need to detail that out. For Ikea when you have to purchase pieces to a set, we get a separate receipts for each. So the brackets and shelving for the bedroom will be on one receipt and the brackets and shelving for the other room will be on another receipt. Even at the store I cant figure out what all the little pieces are! But really, if you are making a decent enough salary, then you are probably spending too much on wants and are calling the items needs. So really your problem is correctly identifying needs from wants. Define a NEED. YOU. Make up your own definition of need Dwell on it. Let it become meaningful for you. Oranges are a need. Chocolate is not (no, really it's not! Lol!). So when you are putting the stuff in the basket, you dont even have to think about whether it's a need or not after a while. Wants go in the child seat if at all possible (to keep the number of items smaller). When you are ready to check out, add up the items roughly in the want pile. Ask yourself if you really want all that stuff. Then put some stuff back! At this point ask yourself is the 8 hours I will have to work to pay for this worth it? Am I really going to use it? Will using the item make me happy? Or is it the actual buying of the item that makes me feel powerful? Where will I put it? How much time will I need to maintain it? Then put some stuff back! Get some good goals, a kayaking trip or whatever. Ask yourself if the item is worth delaying the trip. How will I feel later? Will I have buyers remorse? If so, put it back! These are controls you can put into place that don't take a lot of discipline. Writing the items down on the receipt is a more advanced step you can take later. If you are with friends, go first so that you can write down the items while they are checking out. If you are private and don't want to share your method with your friends, go to the bathroom and in the stall write it down while they wait. Writing the items on the receipt while in the store is sort of a trigger mechanism for remembering to do so. That pulling out of the card triggers your memory to get out your pen or ask the cashier for one. The side benefit is catching someone using a cloned copy of your card. In the medical account if you see an Exxon charge, you know it's not yours. Also, while that one account is shut down, you have three others to rely on in the meantime. My spouse hated fumbling for the right card. They all look the same. Color code your cards. We have blue cross blue shield so it feels natural to have the food/medical account with a blue sticker (just buy a little circle sticker and place it on the edge so half is on the front and half is on the back -- nowhere near the strip). I've never been given a hard time about it. Our car is red so the car card is red, etc. If you think four cards is a lot to carry, ask yourself if you would rather carry four cards or keep track of every little thing? Good luck. I know you will find a system that works for you if you keep trying.\""
},
{
"docid": "575552",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So you are in IT, that is great news because you can earn a fabulous income. The part time is not great, but you can use this to your advantage. You can get another job or three to boost your income in the short term. In the long term you should be able to find a better paying job fairly easily. There is one way to never deal with creditors again: never borrow money again. Its pretty damn simple and from the suggestions of your post you don't seem to be very good at handling credit. This would make you fairly normal. 78% of US households don't have $1000 saved. How are they going to handle a brake job/broken dryer/emergency room visit? Those things happen. Cut your lifestyle to nothing, earn money and save it. Say you have 2000 saved up. Then a creditor calls saying you owe 5K. Tell me you are willing to settle for the 2K you have saved. If they don't, hang up. If they are willing getting it writing and pay by a method that insulates you from further charges. Boom one out of the way and keep going. You will be 1099'd for some income, but it is a easy way to \"\"earn\"\" extra money. This will all work if you commit yourself to never again borrowing money.\""
},
{
"docid": "545789",
"title": "",
"text": "\"How can I say this more clearly? SCAM, SCAM, SCAM! This is another one of the oldest scams out there, where you've won a prize or an inheritance has come in, and all you have to do is pay the taxes on it to claim it. Don't be a sucker! Ask yourself why the government couldn't (and wouldn't) just take the taxes due out of the funds they have and give the rest to the person they belong to? Wouldn't that be the smartest and easiest thing to do? As an example, let's say that you have $1,000 that belongs to me, and I owe you $100. Would you tell me to pay you the $100 and then you'll give me the $1,000 or would you take the $100 I owe you out of the $1,000 and give me the remaining $900? The fact this is someone you know from the internet and they want your \"\"help\"\" to claim their money should tell you how much of a scam this is. Stop talking to this person, and don't tell them anything personal about you. They are scam artists, and whatever you tell them could be used to steal your identity or take your money. Be careful, my friend!\""
},
{
"docid": "171784",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By \"\"better\"\" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs.\""
},
{
"docid": "180073",
"title": "",
"text": "It is not right to force people to buy any product or service. Period. Do you see how wrong this is? I'd wager that you and I both agree that getting health insurance is a responsible thing to do. Ok, good. But I do not agree that anyone should be forced to buy anything. This is tyranny. Regardless of what is responsible or not, the government, or anyone else for that matter, has no right to force you to buy anything just for the simple fact that you breathe air. Obama signed into law a tax on all living people with the signing of Obamacare. So, because you're alive you are slapped with a tax until the day you die. It's a complete disgrace. This mandate is just one of the terrible things about Obamacare. Imagine what we could be forced to buy next? The federal government forcing us to go to college? Or perhaps the federal government forcing all employers to employ no less than 20 people? Or maybe they want everyone to buy cable. Mandating that anyone buy anything is not right in the least. And there is much more wrong with Obamacare than just the mandate and these other points I made. Forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing (PE) conditions without being able to charge more is another blow to our liberty and freedom. When the government mandates that insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions and must do so without charging more, you leave the door open for consumers to abuse this system. Obama effectively gave people the option to get insurance AFTER they get sick without consequence of higher prices. That is, by definition, not insurance. And then, when that person is no longer sick they can hop off their plan. Do you understand the economic effect of this? This is the reason why insurance premiums are skyrocketing. When someone hops on with a PE condition and then hops off during open enrollment, that person is paying $100 for $1,000 worth of medical care. My numbers of fictitious, but the concept remains the same. Imagine if you had a business where customers paid a monthly fee of $50 so that at any time they may withdraw $1,200 when they needed it. Well, the federal government decides to pass a law that says you cannot deny people that don't have a monthly subscription and need immediate financing. And now people can come in and give you $100 and in return you give them $1,000. Your business would be an epic fail except you did two things to combat this new law. 1) You raised your customers' monthly subscriptions from $50 to $75; and 2) You now require that monthly customers pay a $25 deductible before they are allowed to have their $1,200. As a business person, these changes were necessary because you were not allowed to deny walk-in customers that were exchanging their $100 for your $1,000. This is how Obamacare is affecting the insurance market. Insurance companies have to find a way to not lose money. Raising premiums and deductibles for paying customers is the only way to do it. In a perfect world, everyone buys health insurance before they are sick. And despite the fact that we don't live in a perfect world, there were still ways to get health insurance - and I'm talking pre-Obamacare - if you didn't have it before getting sick. You could have gotten a job that offered medical coverage in a group insurance plan. These plans always covered PE conditions. These plans are (still) required to cover PE conditions. I am not a bad person. I'm not greedy, either. I believe in social support system for those that truly need it. Sometimes people are born into bad situations or sometimes people can slip up and hit some bad luck. I am more than fine with helping those people out. But when the government puts their hands too deep into my pockets, it isn't just money they are grabbing. I spend over 40 hours a week at a job. That job is where I (obviously) make my money. Time is money. And so when the government is constantly creating new welfare programs, the government is taking time from my life. This is time that I want to spend with my friends, wife, mother, father, sister, and daughter. Time is limited for everyone and I want my time outside of my 40 hours at work. THAT is my right. That is all of our rights. You know, even the crazy, loony toon, socialist Bernie Sanders says that those people that work 40 hours a week deserve to make a living wage. Well, if companies weren't regulated so much we'd sure as hell have more money in our pockets. Less government regulations means more competition, more availability, more choices, and better prices. Look at the grocery store industry (i don't know the proper industry term). We have Shop Rite, Acme, Whole Foods, Publix, Wegmans, BJ's, Costco, Traders Joe's, Wawa, Sheetz, and so many more. Look at how stocked our supermarket shelves are...all the time. The only shortages that ever happen are when forecasts call for snowstorms and all the ice melt is gone. Other than that, shelves are stocked, food is fresh, and prices are excellent. And you don't have just one brand of sliced bread, or a single brand of peanut butter, or regular butter, or lettuce, or crackers, soup, meats, on and on and on....you have many brands for many products. We have 13 different kinds of milk in our grocery stores. Almond milk, soy milk, whole milk, 1%, 2%, organic milk, organic 1%.... The government didn't do any of this. People did. Smart. hard-working people did this. There is a market of consumers that want that stuff. And people made business to supply the demand. This is how things work. This is why we are the greatest country on this planet in the history of this world. Running water in your home. Central air. Life-saving surgery/drugs and physical therapy. Being able to turn on and off electricity with a switch. Make a pot of coffee right at your kitchen counter top. Read GoT right on your e-reader. Wash and dry your clothes in your own home. Print a document. Cars/motorcycles/segways. Contact lenses. Run on the treadmill. Play music on your bluetooth speaker from your Mac Book Pro. And this list can go on virtually forever. The government did not of this. People did. And if the government can get the hell out of our way, we can continue to improve the quality of life like we have been for hundreds of years now in this country."
},
{
"docid": "323932",
"title": "",
"text": "I will just explain the time value of money in general, descriptive terms and save the math for someone else. Imagine: You have half a million dollars. I'd like to borrow it all from you. I'll pay it all back, every penny, but no more. And I'll pay it back in about, oh, thirty years or so. (Imagine also that you can be 100% sure that I'll pay it back.) Does this sound like a good deal? Not really. Why not? Well, you could do something with that sort of money. With that sort of money, you could do a lot of things for 30 years. You could buy a nice house and live in it for 30 years and save yourself from spending a lot of money on rent during that time (or save money on interest by paying off a mortgage early) even if the price of the house goes nowhere. If you already had a house, you could do some home improvement, like insulate the place better (to save on heating bills) or even just on something that you're going to enjoy for part of those 30 years (a patio in the back yard). If you were feeling entrepreneurial, you could take that money and start a business. Or you could invest that money in the stock market, and get a lot more back.... and if that's too risky for you, just start a savings account and earn interest. And finally, in 30 years, the value of the dollar will be lower because of inflation, so it won't buy as much now as it will then. That's the time value of money. It's the opportunity cost of the best of the things that you could have done with that money during the time it was gone. When you take out a loan, your interest payments will depend in part on the time value of the money you're borrowing: the people making the loan could be investing that money somewhere else, like government bonds. (It will also depend on factors like the risk of default on the loan - this is why credit card debt is more expensive than debt like a mortgage that's backed by a big fat asset like a house which can be seized and sold if you happen to default.) This is how the Federal Reserve can affect interest rates across the economy by just buying or selling government bonds."
}
] |
6199 | How can all these countries owe so much money? Why & where did they borrow it from? | [
{
"docid": "584273",
"title": "",
"text": "By the phrasing of your question it seems that you are under the mistaken impression that countries are borrowing money from other countries, in which case it would make sense to question how everyone can be a borrower with no one on the other side of the equation. The short answer is that the debt is owed mostly to individuals and institutions that buy debt instruments. For example, you know those US savings bonds that parents are buying to save for their children's education? Well a bond is just a way to loan money to the Government in exchange for the original money plus some interest back later. It is as simple as that. I think because the debt and the deficit are usually discussed in the context of more complex macroeconomic concerns people often mistakenly assume that national debts are denominated in some shadow banking system that is hidden from the common person behind some red-tape covered bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Why did they get themselves into this much debt? The same reason the average person does, they are spending more than they bring in and are enabled by access to easy credit. Like many people they are also paying off one credit card using another one."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "486440",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\""
},
{
"docid": "124099",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Thank goodness you replied again before i did i completely forgot to respond and that notification was a good reminder. Im genuinely enjoying the conversation and sorry about the name calling most of my political and economic debates happen with family where name calling is not only accepted but expected lol. > Too many people walk into the emergency room uninsured, or under-insured. They get emergent care that they are not covered for, and the hospitals jack up the prices greatly in the hopes of getting a larger portion reimbursed by Medicare [this link] (https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/who-bears-the-cost-of-the-uninsured-nonprofit-hospitals) seems to contradict that statment. i dont know enough about the system to say youre wrong but it doesnt sound very real to me. >Again, Switzerland has lower tax rates than the US, but they don't even crack the top 20 when it comes to countries with low taxes. Youre obviously not wrong but there are many places on that list id love to retire in. Amongst the developed world from what im seeing [here] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates) has the 27th lowest individual income tax rate when it applies to there highest bracket. now i use the term \"\"developed\"\" very loosely here as there are countries ahead of them on that list that clearly arent part of the developed world but its not up to me to decide what the swiss rank is. >So you work in construction, an industry in which commercial is notorious for underbidding a contract (whether to government or to private), and then running into unexpected overages that cause the job to go over schedule, over budget. This is dangerously false. The industry isnt known for underbidding and going over budget. Only really really really bad contractors do that. What a lot of good contractors do is, when you know a general contractor for a long time or youre trying to to build a relationship you do eachother favors so they will say for instance \"\"hey man i dont have the budget to pay you what you need so take a loss on this one and we'll take care of you on the next one\"\" or they will find some money unaccounted for in the budget and throw it your way in the form of extra work done. >Its not like the government just sits around and takes it. I know of at least one federal contractor who went to federal prison for fraudulently winning contracts in my part of the country. In my line of work they really do just sit back and take it, from what ive experience you have to be super greedy and really fuck up to get their attention. 1 job i did, i was only there for 3 weeks total and in that 3 week period i saw all types of osha violations, rescource waste, time waste and plenty of govenrment workers who didnt really know what they were doing \"\"checking\"\" on the job to make sure progress was being made. >It is because government has tremendous resources that they can throw at a problem. This is where we really do differ, i see this as a bad thing. I see it as them not spending money efficiently money that they got from me and my hard work. Look at the f22 raptor for instance it is now 3 times over budget from the projections for how much of an upgrade? Whats the point of a contract if someone can just go over budget 3 times over without anyone blinking an eye. Why not just say \"\"get it done and bill us\"\". I understand your point of view completely i just vehemently disagree with it especially because i think the government source of revenue is based around theft.\""
},
{
"docid": "453976",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm going to give a simpler answer than some of the others, although somewhat more limited: the complicated loan parameters you describe benefit the lender. I'll focus on this part of your question: You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Here \"\"you\"\" refers to the borrower. Sure, yes, it would be great for the borrower to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, increasing or decreasing the loan balance by paying or not paying arbitrary amounts at their whim. But it doesn't benefit the lender to let the borrower do this. Adding various kinds of restrictions and extra conditions to the loan reduces the lender's uncertainty about when they'll be receiving money, and also gives them a greater range of legal recourse to get it sooner (since they can pursue the borrower right away if they violate any of the conditions, rather than having the wait until they die without having paid their debt). Then you say: And if you want, you can set a legal deadline. But the mere deadline in the contract doesn't affect how much interest is paid—the interest is only affected by how much money is borrowed and how long has passed. I think in many cases that is in fact how it works, or at least it is more how it works than you seem to think. For instance, you can take out a 30-year loan but pay it off in less than 30 years, and the amount you pay will be less if you pay it off sooner. However, in some cases the lender will charge you a penalty for doing so. The reason is the same as above: if you pay off the loan sooner, you are paying less interest, which is worse for the lender. Again, it would be nice for the borrower if they could just pay it off sooner with no penalty, but the lender has no reason to let them do so. I think there are in fact other explanations for these more complicated loan terms that do benefit the borrower. For instance, an amortization schedule with clearly defined monthly payments and proportions going to interest and principal also reduces the borrower's uncertainty, and makes them less likely to do risky things like skip lots of payments intending to make it up later. It gives them a clear number to budget from. But even aside from all that, I think the clearest answer to your question is what I said above: in general, it benefits the lender to attach conditions and parameters to loans in order to have many opportunities to penalize the borrower for making it hard for the lender to predict their cash flow.\""
},
{
"docid": "546187",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater. Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just \"\"renovate\"\" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K. Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood. If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value. People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount. If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan. The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value. It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost. Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow. It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for.\""
},
{
"docid": "575552",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So you are in IT, that is great news because you can earn a fabulous income. The part time is not great, but you can use this to your advantage. You can get another job or three to boost your income in the short term. In the long term you should be able to find a better paying job fairly easily. There is one way to never deal with creditors again: never borrow money again. Its pretty damn simple and from the suggestions of your post you don't seem to be very good at handling credit. This would make you fairly normal. 78% of US households don't have $1000 saved. How are they going to handle a brake job/broken dryer/emergency room visit? Those things happen. Cut your lifestyle to nothing, earn money and save it. Say you have 2000 saved up. Then a creditor calls saying you owe 5K. Tell me you are willing to settle for the 2K you have saved. If they don't, hang up. If they are willing getting it writing and pay by a method that insulates you from further charges. Boom one out of the way and keep going. You will be 1099'd for some income, but it is a easy way to \"\"earn\"\" extra money. This will all work if you commit yourself to never again borrowing money.\""
},
{
"docid": "569207",
"title": "",
"text": "\">We also have the highest expenditures as a percent of GDP than any other nation. Needless to say we spend a LOT on health care also. That is in large part do to insane healthcare costs passed on to the consumers by the aca. Healthcare spending has increased on average 1.5% annually since 2009 where as the highest growth in spending from 1991 until 2006 was 1.3% (im willing to admit my research may be incomplete or inaccurate here as the available rescources are pretty limited in my short time researching) >we do have arguably the best health care services in the world... that is mostly only true if you are very wealthy. Thats a dumb statement leftists make. There is no excuse to not put yourself in debt for the best healthcare possible. Idk about you but I'd rather be in a lot of debt getting first rate healthcare than get affordable care from a 2nd rate community college doctor. Did you also know that medical debt doesnt effect your credit score so even if you \"\"default\"\" on medical debts it doesnt effect any part of your life. so why wouldnt you go in debt and then slowly pay off that debt with no fear of negative repercussions for not paying? >When you break it down on results per dollar spent, the US doesn't even break the top 20. When you break it down on infant mortality, and life expectancy, we have been on a backward slide for a while now (although those rates improved for the short while that the ACA has been in effect, as have the net increase in costs). At the end of the day, the cost of health care has grown 3X faster than inflation, and 20X faster than the average income for over 30 years now. So, no, health care in this country is not the best to the average person. I dont have health insurance and an ER visit with xrays costs me less out of pocket than 90% of the country why is that? Do you think it has to do with the fact that with the aca hospitals know they are getting paid with 0 questioning on pricing so charge whatever they want and with me they think \"\"shit this guy might not ever pay us lets just give him a decent price and get some money from him because all we can do is send his bill to collections\"\" you clearly dont know how the system works especially because you think its my responsibility to provide you with health insurance. You keep saying i need to travel and experience the world when all you need to do is go to google and look at what a wonderful job Switzerland does with their healthcare. The swiss do everything better, They have some of the best services in the world and a very affordable healthcare plan with many options that is affordable to the tax payers unlike the ACA. You have a very clear Scandinavian bias as im assuming you're a bernie supporter who loves democratic socialism despite all of its short comings. >And yes, Space X has been able to estimate a savings of $300M less... Commercial does a great job of expanding on the research and knowledge that has come from government sponsored R&D. You see that in every modern technological advancement - from the internet, cellular phones, GPS, medical procedures, etc. There are so many modern inventions that have sprung from government patents and government research programs. This is the dumbest statement youve made this entire time. The notion that inventions that were made on the governments dime (my dime) is somehow the product of the government is asinine at best. Youre operating under the assumption that these inventions wouldnt have been made without government funding which is false. They all would have been made on a smaller budget granted maybe a little bit further down the road but not by much considering technology has expanded (with no help from any government) more in the last 20 years than in the prior 200 because thats what technology does it makes life easier for everyone and almost innovates itself. Take apple for instance where is all the government funding they recieved to be one of the most innovative companies in human history or microsoft? Yiou can max 10 things government funding invented when i can walk into your house and point out 10000 things the government had no hand in at all.\""
},
{
"docid": "125057",
"title": "",
"text": "> But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. They deficit spend. They increase prosperity and thus demand. They do it consistently and repeatedly. Claims that it's effects are unintentional don't hold up. Starve the beast is political cover. What they are doing is pushing profits up for the rich by cutting their taxes. Why has as many answers as there are politicians pursuing these policies, but the deficit spending is fairly obviously designed to make the economy appear to be doing better. The interesting side effect is, that they *are* making the economy do better. > Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. This is not where rent seeking occurs. The net cost of national debt is negative. > Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Only if you don't understand that people having money is a prerequisite for people spending money. > Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes. Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population. Since we all work for each other and one person's income becomes another's relatively quickly, it's an appropriate approximation to average that income out over the population and when you do that you quickly see that government taxes and spending have a net positive effect on how much money we have. This is why we can dump so much into defense spending and still have a viable economy and why removing that spending would do more harm than good. Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend. Government taking on more debt thus creating more money and handing it to it's population makes that problem better and thus the economy gains strength. Fixing the core problem that is causing the population to run out of money is a harder task, but piling on the debt in the meantime alleviates the symptoms."
},
{
"docid": "266984",
"title": "",
"text": "\">We were on the \"\"gold standard\"\" in name only since about 1910. There a few nuances behind the \"\"gold standard\"\" but all revolve around indebtedness and currency devaluation. The US actually started off in 1785 with a Silver standard. By the turn of the 18th century there was a fixed ratio of silver and gold to dollars. Silver was not required to back all of the currency, gold was used as well. This bi-metallic standard continued until 1920s. Gold and Silver were legal tender. The US treasury was on a strict hard-money standard. Doing business in only gold and silver until 1848 which seperated the Federal Government from the banking system. It was only after this move the federal government started the devaluation/overvaluation of silver in order to \"\"borrow\"\" from England. Silver came in, Gold came out. This also largely catalyzed the 1849 Gold Rush. Then in 1853 the US started reducing the weight of silver coins. In 1857 banks suspended payment in Silver. But the basic weakness in a gold standard started with GOVERNMENT wanting to manipulate value to unfairly skew debt/loan situations. >There was not enough gold to remotely back the US currency This is not true. US currency did just fine, and as governments print, so too do prices go up. So if there is only 50 Billion currency units in existance and eggs cost 10 cents (as they did for previous decades), when the federal government prints its way to trillions thats where we end up with eggs costing 2-3 bucks. That's why your grandparents house cost 6,000 and ones today cost 600,000. >which is why during the great depression when people started wanting to turn their cash back in to gold there was no enough No, they turned back to gold because of the devaluation of the dollar. If the dollar was falling as it is today, why would you want to keep your assets in dollars? Gold cannot be printed at whim, this is one of the most important factors. It forces government to be much more strict with debt. If taxpayers were faced with higher taxes or devaluation to pay for the current Iraq/Afganistan wars, would it have happened? No, but since the government could print money at whim, it served as an invisible tax. >and gold possession had to be outlawed It was outlawed because as the dollar plummeted and gold was eventually made illegal, the value of gold doubled and rapidly increased overnight, this happened again in 1970 when nixon took us off the gold standard. Gold posession was made illegal to prevent \"\"hoarders and opportunists\"\". You make it sound like gold redemption is a bad thing, when really its the government being naughty and citizens simply playing the game and by the rules set up by the government. >So no, we were not on a gold standard. Yeah I never said we were. But there is a very important reason we once were, so government couldnt devalue currency to rack up more debt. (A HUGE issue that has now played out to its logical conclusion, maximum indebtedness mixed with massive mechanisms for manipulation) >Secondly, when you're on a (any fixed item) standard, your economy only can grow at roughly the rate you fond more of the (fixed item). Is that why the US did just fine between 1780 and 1913? Over a hundred years. The cost of many items was stable for DECADES. Nowadays we have a doubling effect with cars costing 4,000 in 1970, 26,000 in 2000, 45,000 in 2012. The same with houses, food, education, medical services, you name it. >There are many reasons for this, and it is partially why for thousands of years of various gold standard there was so little economic growth. Once countries stopped limiting the amount of total economic growth to the amount of gold they could dig up, that economies were able to grow at the sustained rate they have for the past 200ish years. Wrong again, this is because of productivity from technology and invention, oil, electricity, automobiles, airplanes and eventually computers. Infact as I said above, fiat currency actually kills productivity. Its hard to compare the turn of the century, but we can see what happened after nixon took us off the gold standard here: http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/tfp.jpeg as soon as the USA left the gold exchange standard, total factor productivity began to dramatically stagnate. 1.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for policymakers: GDP growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency, or in infrastructure, but instead by just pumping money into the system. 2.Leaving the gold exchange standard was a free lunch for businesses: revenue growth could be achieved without any real gains in productivity, or efficiency. >So, besides the fact that the US has not in modern history been backed by gold, despite the name, there is ample evidence from hundreds of economies and thousands of years that being on a gold standard = little or no economic growth. Since nixon took us off the gold standard in terms of dollar connection in anyway to gold the value of the dollar has plummeted 70%. Its over 95% if you go back to the early 1900s and currency debasement. There was plenty of economic growth while we were on the gold standard and to say otherwise is simply false.\""
},
{
"docid": "556072",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on."
},
{
"docid": "365597",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For person A to be protected (meaning able to recover some or all of the money should the other party try to welsh on the deal), the two of them must have entered into a valid, binding contract where both parties acknowledge and agree to the debt and the terms. Such a contract is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a collection of laws governing contracts which is mostly borrowed from English common law. The basics are that in all cases, a \"\"contract\"\" is only formed when both parties agree, technically when one party accepts an offer made by the other party. Both the offer and acceptance must be made sincerely. For a contract, once entered, to be enforceable, proof of the contract's existence and terms must itself exist. Certain types of transactions (real estate, large amounts of money) require contracts to be in written form, and witnessed by a trusted third party (in most cases this party is required to be a notary public). And contracts must have a certain amount of quid-pro-quo; contracts that provide a unilateral benefit can be thrown out on a case-by-case basis. A contract that simply states that Person B owes Person A money, without stating what benefit Person A had provided Person B in return for the money (in this case A gives B the money to begin with), is unenforceable. The benefits must of course be legal on both sides; a contract to deliver 5 tons of cocaine will not be upheld by any court in any free country, and neither will any contract attempting to enforce hush money, kickbacks, bribery etc (though some toe the line; one could argue that a signing bonus is tantamount to bribery). In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like \"\"escape clauses\"\" allowing one party a \"\"free out\"\", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on \"\"finance charges\"\" for debts not owed to a \"\"bank\"\" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States). This is HUGE for your example, because if Person A had specified an interest rate in excess of the allowed rate for non-bank lenders, not only will the contract get thrown out even though Person B agreed to the terms, but Person A could find themselves on the hook for punitive damages payable to Person B, FAR in excess of the contracted amount. Given that the agreement meets all tests of validity for a contract, if either party fails to perform in accordance with the contract, causing a loss or \"\"tort\"\" for the other party, the injured party can sue. Generally the two options are \"\"strict performance\"\" (the injuring party is ordered by the court to comply exactly with the terms of the contract), or payment of net actual damages and dissolution of the contract. In your example, if Person A had lent Person B money, strict performance would mean payment of the debt in the installments agreed, at the rate agreed; actual damages would be payment of the outstanding balance plus current interest charges (without any further penalty). Notice that it's \"\"net\"\" damages; if Person A was to issue the loan in installments, and missed one, causing Person B to suffer damages from the loss of expected cash flow directly resulting in their failure to pay according to the terms, then Person B's proven damages are subtracted from A's; very often, the plaintiff in a suit to recover money can end up owing the defendant for a prior failure to perform. There are further laws governing bankruptcy; basically, if the other person cannot satisfy the contract and cannot pay damages, they will pay what they can, and the contract is terminated with prejudice (\"\"no blood from a turnip\"\").\""
},
{
"docid": "481683",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\""
},
{
"docid": "211412",
"title": "",
"text": "Did you read the part where the economists said the economic growth from unskilled workers was offset by the need for social services? Economists said globalization would be good for American workers. Then, whoops, sorry. Trade agreements lift those countries with high rates of poverty and depresses the wages of the middle classes in better off countries. Economists love to crow about free markets. Then, whoops, sorry. Banking and insurance needs regulations to prevent abuses leading to worldwide recession. Economists look at everything from the basic Econ 101 model they learned in school which described the ideal market. Theoretically, this is how markets work. I don't know why we still put so much faith in their words."
},
{
"docid": "142110",
"title": "",
"text": "\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\""
},
{
"docid": "240236",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the \"\"drop dead date\"\" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like \"\"borrowing\"\" from various internal accounts and \"\"selling\"\" assets to government authorities. I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises.\""
},
{
"docid": "36880",
"title": "",
"text": "Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’."
},
{
"docid": "334559",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question posted was, \"\"Should I pay off a 0% car loan\"\"? The poster provided a few details: I'm ahead on 0% interest car loan. I don't have to make a payment until October. I currently owe $3,000 and I could pay it all off. Should I do that or leave that money in my savings account that earns 2% interest? The question seems to seek a general rule of thumb for how to behave with smaller debts. And a general rule of thumb could be taken from one of two principles (which seem to be religious camps). The \"\"free money\"\" camp believes that you can invest (even small amounts) of money risk-free and receive high returns, tax free, for zero effort. The \"\"reduce debt\"\" camp believes that you should pay off debts so that you have the freedom to live your life unfettered. Which religion do you prefer? I tend to prefer paying off debts. The \"\"free money\"\" tent wants you to pay the car off over the next 6 months, earning interest. Suppose you can earn 2% interest (.02/12 per month), paying $500 per month for 6 months. So you earn interest on 3000 the first month, 2500, the second month, 2000 the third month, So, are you feeling rich, earning $13.13? How much time did you spending making the 5 additional payments? You could skip coffee once/month and make a bigger difference. The \"\"reduce debt\"\" tent would have you pay off the car. Suppose you change your deductible on the car (or drop collision) to save money, and you will also same time by avoid 5 bill payments, But do you still have enough money in your emergency fund, how do you feel about having less insurance coverage, and did you notice the time savings? We really need more information about the poster's situation. The answer should consider the relevant details of the situation to provide an informed response. Here are questions that would enable a response to address the whole situation. Why are these important? Here are a few reasons why the above might be important.\""
},
{
"docid": "21325",
"title": "",
"text": "A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt)."
},
{
"docid": "356873",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, the only thing they can do to force you to pay is sue you. If they don't sue you, then they can't force you to do anything. All they have right now is just a written agreement you signed promising to pay. That by itself doesn't have legal power to take money from you. The worst they can do without suing you is put negative information on your credit report (which has probably already happened anyway). If they sue you within the \"\"statute of limitations\"\", they will almost certainly win and get a judgment against you, because you did agree to pay. With that judgment, the court can force you to reveal your income and asset information, and they can take the judgment to do things like seize money from your bank accounts and/or garnish your wages. And the judgment does not go away. However, if you have no money in the bank and/or income, they can't take any money from you, because you have none. They can't take more from you than you have. In other words, if you have no money or income, and won't have money or income soon, the judgment they can get by suing you and winning isn't worth the paper it's on. Since serving you and suing you takes money and effort, they will make a calculation on whether it is worth suing you based on the amount of debt and what amount of money they think they can get from you based on what they know about you. This is the reason why you may not be sued at all (if they calculate that it is not worth it), and also why they may offer you a settlement for a lesser amount (because is saves the cost of suing and the risk that they won't be able to get you to pay). The amount you mentioned (several thousand dollars) may be small enough for it to be not worth it. Another thing is the statute of limitations I mentioned earlier, which varies by state and is several years long. If they sue you after the statute of limitations passes, then you can raise the statute of limitations and get the lawsuit dismissed. So basically, after this amount of time passes, you are pretty much free from this debt. Note that the statute of limitations \"\"resets\"\" if you acknowledge the debt, which includes paying any amount on the debt or agreeing that you owe them this debt. So if the collection agency ever offers you benefits if you just sign a promissory note, or just pay a token amount, don't fall for the trap -- they are trying to reset the statute of limitations. Even though it's true that you owe them the debt, never let them hear you acknowledging it, unless it's part of a final settlement. Finally, if they get a judgment against you and you don't want them to have the ability to take your money indefinitely in the future until the debt is satisfied, there may be the option of bankruptcy. However, a few thousand dollars may not be worth the cost and negative consequences of bankruptcy, since as a young man you should be able to earn that amount quickly whenever you start working.\""
},
{
"docid": "273387",
"title": "",
"text": "\">If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. No, a debt that comes into being as dollar-denominated remains dollar-denominated. Reserve currency status doesn't change this. The advantage of having the reserve currency is that other countries have a strong motive to accumulate dollars. Because of this we can pay for our imports in dollars. If we no longer had the reserve currency we would lose the ability to run a persistent trade deficit without borrowing foreign currency to do so. To some extent this would self-correct. If foreigners no longer desired to hoard dollars, the flow of dollars back in to the US would bring down the trade deficit. Going forward, we'd have to \"\"live within our means\"\" with respect to foreign trade, funding imports with exports. Domestically every country that has its own currency, not just the US, can use that currency to fully fund its own domestic productive capacity. Printing money doesn't make a poor country rich but it does allow any country to fully realize its own potential. >Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. This is only true when a country borrows in a currency it doesn't issue. When a country spends in its own currency its policy space is constrained by inflation. To the extent any country uses, pegs to or borrows in someone else's currency that policy space is narrowed by the need to first borrow or earn that currency. >if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard The euro shows us where that road leads. Countries that give up monetary authority give up sovereignty and when they find themselves in a situation where the monetary policy they no longer control is at odds with their needs, their economies get torn apart. That's why one country, one currency is good policy. Stability and maximum policy space is achieved when fiscal authority, political legitimacy and monetary authority are consolidated at the same level. It's a three-legged stool that becomes a fragile balancing act when one leg is taken away. Also, there's a whole side discussion to be had on what the alternatives are to the dollar as a reserve currency. The dollar is in that position for a reason.\""
}
] |
6199 | How can all these countries owe so much money? Why & where did they borrow it from? | [
{
"docid": "239214",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Others have pointed out that the entities loaning money to the government are typically people and institutions. Recently, however, the US federal government borrowings were largely funded by money printed by the Federal Reserve. The government had to borrow $1.1 trillion from October, 2010 through June, 2011. During this period the FED printed around $0.8 trillion new dollars to purchase US debt. Thus, the US government was not borrowing money from people, it was being funded by money printing. The central bankers call this \"\"quantitative easing\"\".\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "283657",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right. A Target charge doesn't indicate whether you bought some oil for the car or cold medicine or a lock for the cabinet door that broke. But when you pay for each of these things under the right account, you do know how the money is allocated. Doing it this way requires little discipline. Before you put the item in the basket, you just ask yourself, is this a want or a need (which is something you should be doing anyway). If it's a need, is it for my car, house, or body. The house is what I use if i can't figure it out (like paying for the renewal of my professional license). that's it! You have to stand at the register for longer but so what. If you are spending all your salary and you stop when you have no more money (assuming you've run through all of your savings, which you will soon if you don't change), then you have no more money to spend. So if you are honest when you put things in the basket(need vs want), you are going to run out of spending money real quick. Your spending money account will be empty but you will still have food money. Set your debit card up so that it denies your charge if you dont have enough money. Once you realize how much you truly spend for needs in each category, yoy will only put that much in each account. Therefore, You can't use the house card to just \"\"borrow\"\" from it till next month. If you do, you won't be able to pay your bills. If you have so little discipline that you knowingly spend your bill money, then there is a deeper issue going on than just finding the right budgeting/cash flow system for you. Something is seriously wrong and you need to seek professional help. When someone is trying to help you, the first step is to determine what category you are spending too much in. Then when you realize it's the house category, for example, you will need to figure out why you are spending so much in that category. A bank statement wont tell you that. So you can do what we did. On every receipt --before you walk out of the store-- write down what each purchase is on the receipt. Then you can hand over the receipts to whoever is helping you. Most items are easily recognizable on the receipt so you wont have to write everything down. you should be doing this for insurance purposes anyway. Again, if your receipt is so blooming long that this is onerous, probably everything you just spent is not a need and maybe you need to turn right around and return stuff. Maybe you need to go to the store more often so there are only a few purchases on each receipt. Groceries are groceries. You don't need to detail that out. For Ikea when you have to purchase pieces to a set, we get a separate receipts for each. So the brackets and shelving for the bedroom will be on one receipt and the brackets and shelving for the other room will be on another receipt. Even at the store I cant figure out what all the little pieces are! But really, if you are making a decent enough salary, then you are probably spending too much on wants and are calling the items needs. So really your problem is correctly identifying needs from wants. Define a NEED. YOU. Make up your own definition of need Dwell on it. Let it become meaningful for you. Oranges are a need. Chocolate is not (no, really it's not! Lol!). So when you are putting the stuff in the basket, you dont even have to think about whether it's a need or not after a while. Wants go in the child seat if at all possible (to keep the number of items smaller). When you are ready to check out, add up the items roughly in the want pile. Ask yourself if you really want all that stuff. Then put some stuff back! At this point ask yourself is the 8 hours I will have to work to pay for this worth it? Am I really going to use it? Will using the item make me happy? Or is it the actual buying of the item that makes me feel powerful? Where will I put it? How much time will I need to maintain it? Then put some stuff back! Get some good goals, a kayaking trip or whatever. Ask yourself if the item is worth delaying the trip. How will I feel later? Will I have buyers remorse? If so, put it back! These are controls you can put into place that don't take a lot of discipline. Writing the items down on the receipt is a more advanced step you can take later. If you are with friends, go first so that you can write down the items while they are checking out. If you are private and don't want to share your method with your friends, go to the bathroom and in the stall write it down while they wait. Writing the items on the receipt while in the store is sort of a trigger mechanism for remembering to do so. That pulling out of the card triggers your memory to get out your pen or ask the cashier for one. The side benefit is catching someone using a cloned copy of your card. In the medical account if you see an Exxon charge, you know it's not yours. Also, while that one account is shut down, you have three others to rely on in the meantime. My spouse hated fumbling for the right card. They all look the same. Color code your cards. We have blue cross blue shield so it feels natural to have the food/medical account with a blue sticker (just buy a little circle sticker and place it on the edge so half is on the front and half is on the back -- nowhere near the strip). I've never been given a hard time about it. Our car is red so the car card is red, etc. If you think four cards is a lot to carry, ask yourself if you would rather carry four cards or keep track of every little thing? Good luck. I know you will find a system that works for you if you keep trying.\""
},
{
"docid": "546187",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater. Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just \"\"renovate\"\" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K. Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood. If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value. People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount. If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan. The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value. It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost. Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow. It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for.\""
},
{
"docid": "31061",
"title": "",
"text": "\"With regard to PMI. You propose to put down 5% less, i.e. 15% instead of 20%. This is $12,500. How much is the PMI? You will pay interest on the $12,500 extra you are borrowing, but also stuck paying that PMI for a number of years. Say the PMI is $100/mo. That's like paying nearly 10% on top of the interest you are already paying. If you get a firm quote on what the PMI will cost you, you can make an informed decision. Borrowing at a bit of a premium may make sense, but much about 7-8%, and I'd rather take the risk of needing to raise cash elsewhere. PMI is tough to get rid of until you are at 80% LTV. Edit -Beautiful link from Chad below. Now for the real math - You borrow 85K (to keep math easy) which is 15% down on a $100K house. 1.1% of $85K is $935/yr. But, you see, you are subject to that because you couldn't raise that last $5000. And $935 is 18.7% of that $5000. The PMI is on the whole mortgage, not on that extra bit you owe. Permit me to say \"\"holy crap! 18.7% is higher than my worst credit card, and more than I'd pay to borrow nearly anywhere else.\"\" The percent is the same regardless of the mortgage, this is the math to borrow at an 85% LTV. And why I suggest things like using one's 401(k) as a bridge for such amounts. For the OP, the $12K delta. (Note, the link shows an update to 1.2% which makes the real cost 20.4%) The numbers are not as crazy when borrowing 95% LTV. \"\"only\"\" about 7.9% on the extra needed. Crazy as it sounds, this is how the math works.\""
},
{
"docid": "7712",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money."
},
{
"docid": "172303",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As to where the interest comes from: The same place it comes from in other kinds of savings accounts. The bank takes the money you deposit and invests it elsewhere, traditionally by lending it out to others (hence the concept of a \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank). They make a profit as long as the interest they give for \"\"borrowing\"\" from you, plus the cost of administering the savings accounts and loans, is less than the interest they charge for lending to others. No, they don't have to pay you interest -- but if they didn't, you'd be likely to deposit your funds at another bank which did. Their ideal goal is to pay as little as possible without losing depositors, while charging as much as possible without losing borrowers. (yeah, I know, typo corrected) Why do they get higher interest rate than they pay you? Mostly because your deposits and interest are essentially guaranteed, whereas the folks they're lending to may be late paying or default on those loans. As with any kind of investment, higher return requires more work and/or higher risk, plus (ususally) larger reserves so you can afford to ride out any losses that do occur.\""
},
{
"docid": "276831",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Instead of getting into complex economic theories, here are the few places I can tell you where the cash has disappeared to: 1. Apple - holding over 100b cash in their vault more than any banks have in their reserves in the world and more than enough to pay off all of the debts of the U.S. 2. Real Estates.........in developing countries, that is :p. You may keep hearing how real estates are de-valuing in the U.S., but in developing countries like the BRICs, they are going higher. Think Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. Yes, it's a proven bubble there. If you have access to their regional news, just listen to how many people in Asia have to borrow from loan sharks to keep their finances afloat. 3. Gold - go see for yourself on goldprice.org, that's where the wealthy individuals put their cash in the so-called \"\"safe haven\"\" next to shotguns. Yes, it's ridiculous and is totally out of anyone's league beyond basic things like air, water, and food. 4. Commodities (gas, food, basic materials) - enough said, check out your local gas pumps and grocery stores.\""
},
{
"docid": "481683",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\""
},
{
"docid": "36880",
"title": "",
"text": "Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’."
},
{
"docid": "314478",
"title": "",
"text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\""
},
{
"docid": "125057",
"title": "",
"text": "> But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. They deficit spend. They increase prosperity and thus demand. They do it consistently and repeatedly. Claims that it's effects are unintentional don't hold up. Starve the beast is political cover. What they are doing is pushing profits up for the rich by cutting their taxes. Why has as many answers as there are politicians pursuing these policies, but the deficit spending is fairly obviously designed to make the economy appear to be doing better. The interesting side effect is, that they *are* making the economy do better. > Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. This is not where rent seeking occurs. The net cost of national debt is negative. > Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Only if you don't understand that people having money is a prerequisite for people spending money. > Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. The government gives you more income than it takes from you in taxes. Every bit of cut spending removes income from the population. Since we all work for each other and one person's income becomes another's relatively quickly, it's an appropriate approximation to average that income out over the population and when you do that you quickly see that government taxes and spending have a net positive effect on how much money we have. This is why we can dump so much into defense spending and still have a viable economy and why removing that spending would do more harm than good. Our economic trouble has nothing to do with efficiency and how much work needs to be done, and everything to do with how much money people have to spend. Government taking on more debt thus creating more money and handing it to it's population makes that problem better and thus the economy gains strength. Fixing the core problem that is causing the population to run out of money is a harder task, but piling on the debt in the meantime alleviates the symptoms."
},
{
"docid": "50972",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You said all terrorists are Muslims, which is not true at all because most acts of terror comes from right winged population (most common are the burning down a refugee house and personal attacks on diffrent looking guys) At least in Germany, dont know about other countries but i can not imagine it much different. Cause and effect and quantity? is a terror attack more harmful if more people heard of it ? Effect on who ? I can imagine you talking in public is pretty scary for foreigners. (which is the point of the hate speech topic). Lets not drag the refugee topic in here too because its very complicated. Just for your information im very much in favour of fighting the cause of immigration and helping where it is needed and not letting millions walk thousands of miles to get to safety of to make a living. Funny how your mind works. Criminal immigrants are not accepted in Germany by the way and if they get criminal here they get deported. The crime rate of the refugees is actually a bit lower then the rate of the rest of the population, so not big a problem. (which makes sense if you think about it. It was hard to get here and they dont want to go back). \"\"Do you think a rightwing would attack Muslims if they did not attack westerners? Do you think rightwing attacks are more than Muslim attacks? Are they even 1% of all attacks and harm?\"\". THIS IS THE CORE PROBLEM I AM TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS WHY MILLIONS OF GERMANS SLAUGHTERED THE JEWISH POPULATION. THIS IS THE RESULT OF HATE SPEECH AND HARD RIGHT PROPAGANDA. The difference between now and then? Swap jew with muslim!!! \"\" the muslims are to blame for the crime rate/ attacking our women / the bad economy. It is exactly the same mindset. People then were no different then people now. They did think they help germany by getting rid of those \"\"pests\"\". Most of them did nothing at all and after the war they said they didn't know about any attacks or killings of jews. Needles to say that the actual crime rate if jews in Germany was no different then the non jew crime rate just as it is now with muslims. The overall crime rate rise significantly though since the start of the refugees crisis as a result of massive right wing activity. You said you hate nazis a while back. I don't think you know what a nazi is and sure enough i called you one and you did not deny. My friend i was wrong about you. You are a helpless cause with terrible arguments based on prejudice and hate. I still did enjoy this conversation because it was a) mostly civil and b) gave me a very good look into the mindset of a nazi. You may be happy to here that i realized while researching the topic that the problem of nazis is much bigger then i have thought and i can not ignore it anymore and have to join the fight. Good day to you and may reason catch up to you in your future life.\""
},
{
"docid": "244025",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments? Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a \"\"resource\"\" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008. So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers...\""
},
{
"docid": "245355",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "486460",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The can and the should have been discussed in other answers and comments, and so I will discuss the how. As others have noted, it is important to make sure that the additional money goes to reducing principal and not towards prepayment of interest. Unfortunately, very few bank tellers understand how mortgages work and very few bank officers - even loan officers - understand how mortgages work too. Thus a statement that you want the extra money to go towards principal will likely be met with a blank look. Furthermore, what they do with the money and how it is entered on the bank books that afternoon when the transactions are recorded may have no resemblance to what was discussed and agreed to earlier in the day. Based on my personal experiences and many arguments with banks about how they handled my prepayments and how interest was computed, I would recommend the following (which is easier now that automated payments are possible for the standard monthly payment and additional payments are possible via electronic funds transfer). Make sure that automated payments are made on the day that the payment is due, not at the end of the ten-day grace period that banks love to grant you for making the monthly payment. Yes, there is no penalty for late payment as long as you pay before the end of the grace period, but interest continues to be charged and so more of each graciously delayed payment goes to interest and less towards principal. Make the additional payment on the same day as the standard monthly mortgage payment is made. This ensures that at worst just one day's interest is owing when the additional payment is made. Also, payment in the middle of the monthly cycle is an almost sure way of getting ripped off on the interest because the bank's computers will post the payment in the manner most favorable to them, and usually contrary to the terms of your mortgage. I have complained to banks about mishandled mid-month payments and won every time, and on many occasions the bank officer would grudgingly say \"\"We have always done it this way and nobody ever complained till you did today.\"\" I doubt very much if the bank's programs got changed as a result of my complaints. If you are not sure how mortgages work and how interest is calculated or don't have the time or inclination to go hassle with the bank each time but do prefer not to get ripped off, make the payment as described: on the dot and at the same time as the regularly scheduled monthly payment. The amortization schedule that the bank should have given you shows how much the principal amount is after the monthly payment is made on each due date. Assuming that you have not been taking advantage of the grace periods and so the schedule is correct, make an additional payment not of a round sum but an exact amount (down to the last penny) that will jump you from principal owing after today's regular payment to principal owing after the regular payment N months from today. Here of course you choose N based on how much extra money you were planning on paying towards your mortgage. By making the extra payment, you will effectively have cut the length of the mortgage by n months and the same amortization schedule will apply over the shorter period. Since very little of the principal is repaid in the early life of the mortgage, an additional principal-only payment can reduce the length of the mortgage by years. Paying a specific amount that matches the amortization schedule also helps if you ever need to hassle with the bank. It is their print-out you are arguing from, and not trying to explain to a clueless bank officer how the bank did not compute interest correctly after you paid $1500.00 extra at beginning of last month.\""
},
{
"docid": "366869",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan."
},
{
"docid": "323932",
"title": "",
"text": "I will just explain the time value of money in general, descriptive terms and save the math for someone else. Imagine: You have half a million dollars. I'd like to borrow it all from you. I'll pay it all back, every penny, but no more. And I'll pay it back in about, oh, thirty years or so. (Imagine also that you can be 100% sure that I'll pay it back.) Does this sound like a good deal? Not really. Why not? Well, you could do something with that sort of money. With that sort of money, you could do a lot of things for 30 years. You could buy a nice house and live in it for 30 years and save yourself from spending a lot of money on rent during that time (or save money on interest by paying off a mortgage early) even if the price of the house goes nowhere. If you already had a house, you could do some home improvement, like insulate the place better (to save on heating bills) or even just on something that you're going to enjoy for part of those 30 years (a patio in the back yard). If you were feeling entrepreneurial, you could take that money and start a business. Or you could invest that money in the stock market, and get a lot more back.... and if that's too risky for you, just start a savings account and earn interest. And finally, in 30 years, the value of the dollar will be lower because of inflation, so it won't buy as much now as it will then. That's the time value of money. It's the opportunity cost of the best of the things that you could have done with that money during the time it was gone. When you take out a loan, your interest payments will depend in part on the time value of the money you're borrowing: the people making the loan could be investing that money somewhere else, like government bonds. (It will also depend on factors like the risk of default on the loan - this is why credit card debt is more expensive than debt like a mortgage that's backed by a big fat asset like a house which can be seized and sold if you happen to default.) This is how the Federal Reserve can affect interest rates across the economy by just buying or selling government bonds."
},
{
"docid": "171784",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends on how far down the market is heading, how certain you are that it is going that way, when you think it will fall, and how risk-averse you are. By \"\"better\"\" I will assume you are trying to make the most money with this information that you can given your available capital. If you are very certain, the way that makes the most money for the least investment from the options you provided is a put. If you can borrow some money to buy even more puts, you will make even more. Use your knowledge of how far and when the market will fall to determine which put is optimal at today's prices. But remember that if the market stays flat or goes up you lose everything you put in and may owe extra to your creditor. A short position in a futures contract is also an easy way to get extreme leverage. The extremity of the leverage will depend on how much margin is required. Futures trade in large denominations, so think about how much you are able to put to risk. The inverse ETFs are less risky and offer less reward than the derivative contracts above. The levered one has twice the risk and something like twice the reward. You can buy those without a margin account in a regular cash brokerage, so they are easier in that respect and the transactions cost will likely be lower. Directly short selling an ETF or stock is another option that is reasonably accessible and only moderately risky. On par with the inverse ETFs.\""
},
{
"docid": "544020",
"title": "",
"text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations."
},
{
"docid": "584132",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are some reasons why it is advantageous to hold a portion of your savings in other countries: However, it should be noted that there are some drawbacks to holding funds in foreign banks: Don't worry; I haven't forgotten about the elephant in the room. What about tax evasion and money laundering? In general, simply transferring funds to a foreign jurisdiction will do nothing to help you evade taxes or hide evidence of a crime. Pretty much any method you can think of to transfer money is easily traceable, and any method that is difficult to trace is either illegal or heavily-regulated, with stiff penalties if you get caught. There are a few jurisdictions that have very strict banking privacy laws (the Philippines, for example). If you can somehow get the money into a bank account in one of these countries, you might be OK... at least, until that country's government decides (or is pressured) to change its banking privacy laws. But, what would you actually do with that money? Unless you want to go live in that country, you're going to have to transfer the funds out to spend them, and now you're right back on the radar — except now it's even worse, because the fact that the funds come from a suspicious jurisdiction will automatically cause your transfer to get flagged for investigation! This is where money laundering comes into play. There are lots of ways to go about this (exceptionally illegal) activity, many of which do not involve banks at all (at least, not directly). How money laundering works is outside the scope of this question, but in case you are curious, here are a couple of articles about the \"\"dark side\"\" of finance: In short, if you want to break the law, opening a foreign bank account isn't going to help much. In fact, the real crime is that offshore banking has such a criminal reputation in the first place! That said, it is possible to create legal distance between yourself and your money by using a corporate structure, and there are legitimate reasons why you might want to do this. Depending on which jurisdiction(s) you are a tax resident of, you can use this method to: Exactly how to do this is outside the scope of this question, but it's worth thinking about, especially if you have an interest in geopolitically diversifying your financial assets. If you're interested in learning more, I came across a pretty comprehensive article about Offshore Basics that covers how and why to set up offshore legal structures. (and yes, that makes now 4 links from the same site in one post! I promise it's just a coincidence; see disclaimer below) I am a US citizen with bank accounts in several countries (but not Switzerland; there are far better options out there right now). I have no affiliation with the website linked in this answer; while I was doing research for this answer, I found some really good supporting content, and it all just happened to be from the same source.\""
}
] |
6199 | How can all these countries owe so much money? Why & where did they borrow it from? | [
{
"docid": "169921",
"title": "",
"text": "Here is an overview of who owns US Debt from Wikipedia, it indicates that approximately 1/3rd of US debt is held by foreigners (mainly the central banks of other countries), approximately 1/2 of US Debt is held by the federal reserve, and the rest is owned by various America organizations (mutual funds, pension funds, etc). The money is loaned via bonds, treasury bills, etc. When you put money in your pension fund, you very likely buying US debt. The US Treasury department all has a comprehensive page about how public debt works in the United States here: an overview of public debt from the treasury. I wasn't able to find a similar breakdown for other countries, but Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of how much debt is owed by other countries: a list of countries by public debt."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "544020",
"title": "",
"text": "When the inflation rate increases, this tends to push up interest rates because of supply and demand: If the interest rate is less than the inflation rate, then putting your money in the bank means that you are losing value every day that it is there. So there's an incentive to withdraw your money and spend it now. If, say, I'm planning to buy a car, and my savings are declining in real value, then if I buy a car today I can get a better car than if I wait until tomorrow. When interest rates are high compared to inflation, the reverse is true. My savings are increasing in value, so the longer I leave my money in the bank the more it's worth. If I wait until tomorrow to buy a car I can get a better car than I would be able to buy today. Also, people find alternative places to keep their savings. If a savings account will result in me losing value every day my money is there, then maybe I'll put the money in the stock market or buy gold or whatever. So for the banks to continue to get enough money to make loans, they have to increase the interest rates they pay to lure customers back to the bank. There is no reason per se for rising interest rates to consumers to directly cause an increase in the inflation rate. Inflation is caused by the money supply growing faster than the amount of goods and services produced. Interest rates are a cost. If interest rates go up, people will borrow less money and spend it on other things, but that has no direct effect on the total money supply. Except ... you may note I put a bunch of qualifiers in that paragraph. In the United States, the Federal Reserve loans money to banks. It creates this money out of thin air. So when the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to the banks is low, the banks will borrow more from the Feds. As this money is created on the spot, this adds to the money supply, and thus contributes to inflation. So if interest rates to consumers are low, this encourages people to borrow more money from the banks, which encourages the banks to borrow more from the Feds, which increases the money supply, which increases inflation. I don't know much about how it works in other countries, but I think it's similar in most nations."
},
{
"docid": "450922",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you are asking a few questions here. Why is gold chosen as money? In a free market there are five characteristics of a good money: Gold and silver meet all five characteristics. Diamonds are not easily divisible which is why they are not normally used as money. Copper, Iron, and lead are not scarce enough - you would need a lot of these metals to make weekly or daily purchases. Paper is also way too plentiful to be used as money. By the way, historically silver has been used for money more than gold. How does international trade work with gold as money (is this what you are asking with your hypothetical example of 10 countries each with y amount of gold?) Typically a government will issue a currency that is backed by gold. This means you can redeem your currency for actual gold. Then when an American spends 5 US dollars (USD) to purchase a Chinese good the Chinese man now owns 5 USDs. The Chinese man can either redeem the 5 USD for gold or spend the 5 USD in the US. If a government issues more currency then they have gold for then the gold will start to flow from that country to other countries as the citizens of the other countries redeem the over-issued currency for gold. This outflow of gold restricts governments from over-issuing paper currency. Who creates the procedures and who supervises them in modern worldwide economy? The Federal Reserve, IMF, and Bank of International Settlements all are involved in the current system where the US dollar (see Bretton Woods agreement) is the reserve currency used by central banks throughout the world. Some think this system is coming to an end. I tend to agree."
},
{
"docid": "328295",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm going to subtly and cheekily change the obvious advice. There are three ways to deal with negative cashflow, not two: You're currently studying for a degree. You don't say what country you're in or how your studies are funded, but most people in the US, UK, and a fair number of other countries, run up debts while studying for a degree. They do this because a degree is valuable to them. They can't avoid it because the tuition alone costs more than most students can generate in income, never mind their living expenses. So by all means look for savings, (1). Clearly strangers on the internet can't just think up ways for you to spend less money without knowing anything about what you do spend money on. But you can at least list your expenditures for yourself, and see what's necessary. Consider also how much fun you want your studies to be: 4 years in a cold house to avoid paying for heating, and never going out with friends to avoid spending on unnecessary stuff is all very well. But with hindsight you'll regret torturing yourself if you're ever well-off enough to pay back whatever you would have borrowed to use for heating and fun. Only do (2) if it doesn't affect your studies or if the money you're paid justifies delaying the valuable asset you seek to acquire (a degree, leading perhaps to a better job but at least to the capacity to do a full-time job rather than fitting work around your studies). There are some jobs that are really good fits for students (reasonably low hours that don't clash with classes) and some jobs that are terrible. If these fail, resort to (3). I don't mean dishonest book-keeping, I mean accept that you are going to borrow money in order to pay for something of value that you can account as an asset. Work out now what you'll need to borrow and how you think you can pay it back, make sure the sum is worth it, budget for that, stick to your budget. You'll still have negative cashflow, nothing changes there, but your capital account looks fine. Personally I wouldn't actually put a monetary value on the degree, I'm not that bothered about the accounts and it's really difficult to be accurate about it. You can just consider it, \"\"more than I expect to borrow\"\" and be done with it. Studying costs money. Once you've graduated, you probably aren't going to be back here saying, \"\"I want to buy a house but I have no capital and I don't want to go into debt\"\". Are you? ;-) Although if you are, the answer happens to be \"\"Islamic mortgage\"\"! I don't know whether Islamic banks have an equivalent answer for student debt, since they can't own a share of your degree like they can a share of your home. Unless you're a Muslim, presumably the ways that Islamic finance avoids interest payments would not in any case satisfy your desire to be \"\"not in debt\"\".\""
},
{
"docid": "205585",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's an answer to a related question I once wrote. I'm reposting here. I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "556072",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends what rate mortgage you can get for any extra loans... If you remortgage you are likely to get a rate of 3.5-4%... depending who you go with. With deposit accounts in the UK maying around 1% (yes, you can get more by tying it up for longer but not a huge amount more) clearly you're better off not having a mortgage rather than money in the bank. Does your 8k income allow for tax? If it does, you are getting 6% return on the money tied up in the flat. If you are getting 6% after tax on the invested money, that's way better than you would get on any left over cash paid into an investment. Borrowing money on a mortgage would cost you less than 6%... so you are better off borrowing rather than selling the flat. If you are getting 6% before tax... depending on your tax rate... it probably makes very little difference. You'd need to work out how much an extra 80k mortgage would cost you, how much the 50k on deposit would earn you and how much you make after tax. There is a different route. Set up a mortgage on the rental flat. You can claim the interest payment off the flat's income... reduce your tax bill so the effective mortgage rate on the flat would be less than what you could get with a mortgage on the new house. Use the money from the flat's mortgage to finance the difference in house price. In fact from a tax view, you may be better off having a mortgage free house and maxing out the mortgage on the flat so you can write off as much as possible against your tax bill. All of the above assume ... that the flat is rented all the time. The odd dry spell on the flat could influence the sums a lot. All of the above assume that your cash flow works whichever route you choose. As no-one on stack exchange has all of the numbers for your specific circumstances it may be worth talking to a tax accountant. They could advise you properly, knowing the numbers, which makes the best sense for you in terms of overall cost, cash flow, risk and so on."
},
{
"docid": "356873",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, the only thing they can do to force you to pay is sue you. If they don't sue you, then they can't force you to do anything. All they have right now is just a written agreement you signed promising to pay. That by itself doesn't have legal power to take money from you. The worst they can do without suing you is put negative information on your credit report (which has probably already happened anyway). If they sue you within the \"\"statute of limitations\"\", they will almost certainly win and get a judgment against you, because you did agree to pay. With that judgment, the court can force you to reveal your income and asset information, and they can take the judgment to do things like seize money from your bank accounts and/or garnish your wages. And the judgment does not go away. However, if you have no money in the bank and/or income, they can't take any money from you, because you have none. They can't take more from you than you have. In other words, if you have no money or income, and won't have money or income soon, the judgment they can get by suing you and winning isn't worth the paper it's on. Since serving you and suing you takes money and effort, they will make a calculation on whether it is worth suing you based on the amount of debt and what amount of money they think they can get from you based on what they know about you. This is the reason why you may not be sued at all (if they calculate that it is not worth it), and also why they may offer you a settlement for a lesser amount (because is saves the cost of suing and the risk that they won't be able to get you to pay). The amount you mentioned (several thousand dollars) may be small enough for it to be not worth it. Another thing is the statute of limitations I mentioned earlier, which varies by state and is several years long. If they sue you after the statute of limitations passes, then you can raise the statute of limitations and get the lawsuit dismissed. So basically, after this amount of time passes, you are pretty much free from this debt. Note that the statute of limitations \"\"resets\"\" if you acknowledge the debt, which includes paying any amount on the debt or agreeing that you owe them this debt. So if the collection agency ever offers you benefits if you just sign a promissory note, or just pay a token amount, don't fall for the trap -- they are trying to reset the statute of limitations. Even though it's true that you owe them the debt, never let them hear you acknowledging it, unless it's part of a final settlement. Finally, if they get a judgment against you and you don't want them to have the ability to take your money indefinitely in the future until the debt is satisfied, there may be the option of bankruptcy. However, a few thousand dollars may not be worth the cost and negative consequences of bankruptcy, since as a young man you should be able to earn that amount quickly whenever you start working.\""
},
{
"docid": "97894",
"title": "",
"text": ">why does m2 seem like exponential? how can fractional reserve do something like that? unpossible. You don't understand fractional reserve then. Please explain carefully exactly why fractional reserve cannot do that. Handwaving does not count. As I posted M2 tracks M1 by about a factor of 10, or do you dispute this? If so, why? If not, then you have to ask the question can M1 grow as fast as it has? It clearly has done so. And if it has, then banks have **not** added money beyond the money multiplier, since there is enough M1 to account for M2. What about this do you not understand? All the data is there for you to check. >Steve Keen says otherwise He is wrong. A bank cannot lend money it does not have. I am willing to borrow a quadrillion dollars. Where is the bank that will lend it to me? See, you're wrong."
},
{
"docid": "575241",
"title": "",
"text": "Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations"
},
{
"docid": "90522",
"title": "",
"text": "Some loans have a variable interest rate which can protect the lender from inflation and the borrower from deflation. How much protection it offers depends on how closely the interest rate follows the inflation/deflation rate. Most variable rate loans have limits on how much and how frequently they can adjust. In your deflation scenario, the lender comes out ahead with a fixed rate loan already, since those future dollars are worth more than current dollars. The borrower doesn't owe more dollars, but the value of the dollars they owe is higher."
},
{
"docid": "283657",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right. A Target charge doesn't indicate whether you bought some oil for the car or cold medicine or a lock for the cabinet door that broke. But when you pay for each of these things under the right account, you do know how the money is allocated. Doing it this way requires little discipline. Before you put the item in the basket, you just ask yourself, is this a want or a need (which is something you should be doing anyway). If it's a need, is it for my car, house, or body. The house is what I use if i can't figure it out (like paying for the renewal of my professional license). that's it! You have to stand at the register for longer but so what. If you are spending all your salary and you stop when you have no more money (assuming you've run through all of your savings, which you will soon if you don't change), then you have no more money to spend. So if you are honest when you put things in the basket(need vs want), you are going to run out of spending money real quick. Your spending money account will be empty but you will still have food money. Set your debit card up so that it denies your charge if you dont have enough money. Once you realize how much you truly spend for needs in each category, yoy will only put that much in each account. Therefore, You can't use the house card to just \"\"borrow\"\" from it till next month. If you do, you won't be able to pay your bills. If you have so little discipline that you knowingly spend your bill money, then there is a deeper issue going on than just finding the right budgeting/cash flow system for you. Something is seriously wrong and you need to seek professional help. When someone is trying to help you, the first step is to determine what category you are spending too much in. Then when you realize it's the house category, for example, you will need to figure out why you are spending so much in that category. A bank statement wont tell you that. So you can do what we did. On every receipt --before you walk out of the store-- write down what each purchase is on the receipt. Then you can hand over the receipts to whoever is helping you. Most items are easily recognizable on the receipt so you wont have to write everything down. you should be doing this for insurance purposes anyway. Again, if your receipt is so blooming long that this is onerous, probably everything you just spent is not a need and maybe you need to turn right around and return stuff. Maybe you need to go to the store more often so there are only a few purchases on each receipt. Groceries are groceries. You don't need to detail that out. For Ikea when you have to purchase pieces to a set, we get a separate receipts for each. So the brackets and shelving for the bedroom will be on one receipt and the brackets and shelving for the other room will be on another receipt. Even at the store I cant figure out what all the little pieces are! But really, if you are making a decent enough salary, then you are probably spending too much on wants and are calling the items needs. So really your problem is correctly identifying needs from wants. Define a NEED. YOU. Make up your own definition of need Dwell on it. Let it become meaningful for you. Oranges are a need. Chocolate is not (no, really it's not! Lol!). So when you are putting the stuff in the basket, you dont even have to think about whether it's a need or not after a while. Wants go in the child seat if at all possible (to keep the number of items smaller). When you are ready to check out, add up the items roughly in the want pile. Ask yourself if you really want all that stuff. Then put some stuff back! At this point ask yourself is the 8 hours I will have to work to pay for this worth it? Am I really going to use it? Will using the item make me happy? Or is it the actual buying of the item that makes me feel powerful? Where will I put it? How much time will I need to maintain it? Then put some stuff back! Get some good goals, a kayaking trip or whatever. Ask yourself if the item is worth delaying the trip. How will I feel later? Will I have buyers remorse? If so, put it back! These are controls you can put into place that don't take a lot of discipline. Writing the items down on the receipt is a more advanced step you can take later. If you are with friends, go first so that you can write down the items while they are checking out. If you are private and don't want to share your method with your friends, go to the bathroom and in the stall write it down while they wait. Writing the items on the receipt while in the store is sort of a trigger mechanism for remembering to do so. That pulling out of the card triggers your memory to get out your pen or ask the cashier for one. The side benefit is catching someone using a cloned copy of your card. In the medical account if you see an Exxon charge, you know it's not yours. Also, while that one account is shut down, you have three others to rely on in the meantime. My spouse hated fumbling for the right card. They all look the same. Color code your cards. We have blue cross blue shield so it feels natural to have the food/medical account with a blue sticker (just buy a little circle sticker and place it on the edge so half is on the front and half is on the back -- nowhere near the strip). I've never been given a hard time about it. Our car is red so the car card is red, etc. If you think four cards is a lot to carry, ask yourself if you would rather carry four cards or keep track of every little thing? Good luck. I know you will find a system that works for you if you keep trying.\""
},
{
"docid": "244025",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments? Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a \"\"resource\"\" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008. So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers...\""
},
{
"docid": "142110",
"title": "",
"text": "\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\""
},
{
"docid": "575552",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So you are in IT, that is great news because you can earn a fabulous income. The part time is not great, but you can use this to your advantage. You can get another job or three to boost your income in the short term. In the long term you should be able to find a better paying job fairly easily. There is one way to never deal with creditors again: never borrow money again. Its pretty damn simple and from the suggestions of your post you don't seem to be very good at handling credit. This would make you fairly normal. 78% of US households don't have $1000 saved. How are they going to handle a brake job/broken dryer/emergency room visit? Those things happen. Cut your lifestyle to nothing, earn money and save it. Say you have 2000 saved up. Then a creditor calls saying you owe 5K. Tell me you are willing to settle for the 2K you have saved. If they don't, hang up. If they are willing getting it writing and pay by a method that insulates you from further charges. Boom one out of the way and keep going. You will be 1099'd for some income, but it is a easy way to \"\"earn\"\" extra money. This will all work if you commit yourself to never again borrowing money.\""
},
{
"docid": "21325",
"title": "",
"text": "A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt)."
},
{
"docid": "67406",
"title": "",
"text": "They are wrong. Agreed. The problem I have is that sooner or later you get in so much debt no one will lend money to you anymore. At that point austerity is forced on you. The increased spending comes from domestic and foreign investors. We all know how fickle the financial markets can be. If our debt gets too high and they cut off the tap, we are fucked. I don't think we are anywhere near that point now. However, things can change dramatically in the course of a few months. Political tensions, global uncertainty and social unrest could all cause enough of a panic that people start questioning the safety of U.S. treasuries. We could also see the day where everyone collectively demands the U.S. stop ripping them off with negative bond yields. Like I said, I see no indication of that now, but who knows how long it will take? I know this is a bit of a tangent, but it is clear. My solution: borrow money to improve the economy while you can but make sure that your dollars count to fixing the economy. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with a stagnant economy AND at a serious risk of bankruptcy when the financial markets no longer see you as a wise investment. You can't save yourself from falling off of two cliffs at the same time so our politicians should stop dicking around and start looking for real solutions with the money they are borrowing instead of pissing it away on useless shit."
},
{
"docid": "584132",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here are some reasons why it is advantageous to hold a portion of your savings in other countries: However, it should be noted that there are some drawbacks to holding funds in foreign banks: Don't worry; I haven't forgotten about the elephant in the room. What about tax evasion and money laundering? In general, simply transferring funds to a foreign jurisdiction will do nothing to help you evade taxes or hide evidence of a crime. Pretty much any method you can think of to transfer money is easily traceable, and any method that is difficult to trace is either illegal or heavily-regulated, with stiff penalties if you get caught. There are a few jurisdictions that have very strict banking privacy laws (the Philippines, for example). If you can somehow get the money into a bank account in one of these countries, you might be OK... at least, until that country's government decides (or is pressured) to change its banking privacy laws. But, what would you actually do with that money? Unless you want to go live in that country, you're going to have to transfer the funds out to spend them, and now you're right back on the radar — except now it's even worse, because the fact that the funds come from a suspicious jurisdiction will automatically cause your transfer to get flagged for investigation! This is where money laundering comes into play. There are lots of ways to go about this (exceptionally illegal) activity, many of which do not involve banks at all (at least, not directly). How money laundering works is outside the scope of this question, but in case you are curious, here are a couple of articles about the \"\"dark side\"\" of finance: In short, if you want to break the law, opening a foreign bank account isn't going to help much. In fact, the real crime is that offshore banking has such a criminal reputation in the first place! That said, it is possible to create legal distance between yourself and your money by using a corporate structure, and there are legitimate reasons why you might want to do this. Depending on which jurisdiction(s) you are a tax resident of, you can use this method to: Exactly how to do this is outside the scope of this question, but it's worth thinking about, especially if you have an interest in geopolitically diversifying your financial assets. If you're interested in learning more, I came across a pretty comprehensive article about Offshore Basics that covers how and why to set up offshore legal structures. (and yes, that makes now 4 links from the same site in one post! I promise it's just a coincidence; see disclaimer below) I am a US citizen with bank accounts in several countries (but not Switzerland; there are far better options out there right now). I have no affiliation with the website linked in this answer; while I was doing research for this answer, I found some really good supporting content, and it all just happened to be from the same source.\""
},
{
"docid": "310433",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a bit unsure of why the interest rate is relevant. Are you intending on borrowing the money to go to school? If you cannot pay cash, then it is very likely a bad idea. Many people are overcome by events when seeking higher education and such a loan on a such a salary could devastate you financially. So I find the cost of the program as a total of 76.6K counting a loss in salary during the program and the first year grant. That is a lot of money, do you intend to borrow that much? Especially when you consider that your salary, after you graduate, will be about equal to where you are now. For that reason I am leaning toward a no, even if you had the cash in hand to do so. There is nothing to say that you will enjoy teaching. Furthermore teaching in low income school is more challenging. All that said, is there a way you can raise your income without going back to school? Washington state can be a very expensive place to live and is one of the reason why I left. I am a WWU alumni (Go Vikings!). Could you cash flow a part time program instead? I would give this a sound no, YMMV."
},
{
"docid": "276831",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Instead of getting into complex economic theories, here are the few places I can tell you where the cash has disappeared to: 1. Apple - holding over 100b cash in their vault more than any banks have in their reserves in the world and more than enough to pay off all of the debts of the U.S. 2. Real Estates.........in developing countries, that is :p. You may keep hearing how real estates are de-valuing in the U.S., but in developing countries like the BRICs, they are going higher. Think Hong Kong, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, etc. Yes, it's a proven bubble there. If you have access to their regional news, just listen to how many people in Asia have to borrow from loan sharks to keep their finances afloat. 3. Gold - go see for yourself on goldprice.org, that's where the wealthy individuals put their cash in the so-called \"\"safe haven\"\" next to shotguns. Yes, it's ridiculous and is totally out of anyone's league beyond basic things like air, water, and food. 4. Commodities (gas, food, basic materials) - enough said, check out your local gas pumps and grocery stores.\""
},
{
"docid": "31061",
"title": "",
"text": "\"With regard to PMI. You propose to put down 5% less, i.e. 15% instead of 20%. This is $12,500. How much is the PMI? You will pay interest on the $12,500 extra you are borrowing, but also stuck paying that PMI for a number of years. Say the PMI is $100/mo. That's like paying nearly 10% on top of the interest you are already paying. If you get a firm quote on what the PMI will cost you, you can make an informed decision. Borrowing at a bit of a premium may make sense, but much about 7-8%, and I'd rather take the risk of needing to raise cash elsewhere. PMI is tough to get rid of until you are at 80% LTV. Edit -Beautiful link from Chad below. Now for the real math - You borrow 85K (to keep math easy) which is 15% down on a $100K house. 1.1% of $85K is $935/yr. But, you see, you are subject to that because you couldn't raise that last $5000. And $935 is 18.7% of that $5000. The PMI is on the whole mortgage, not on that extra bit you owe. Permit me to say \"\"holy crap! 18.7% is higher than my worst credit card, and more than I'd pay to borrow nearly anywhere else.\"\" The percent is the same regardless of the mortgage, this is the math to borrow at an 85% LTV. And why I suggest things like using one's 401(k) as a bridge for such amounts. For the OP, the $12K delta. (Note, the link shows an update to 1.2% which makes the real cost 20.4%) The numbers are not as crazy when borrowing 95% LTV. \"\"only\"\" about 7.9% on the extra needed. Crazy as it sounds, this is how the math works.\""
}
] |
6219 | Are there Investable Real Estate Indices which track Geographical Locations? | [
{
"docid": "48946",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "578597",
"title": "",
"text": "You apparently assume that pouring money into a landlord's pocket is a bad thing. Not necessarily. Whether it makes sense to purchase your own home or to live in a rental property varies based on the market prices and rents of properties. In the long term, real estate prices closely follow inflation. However, in some areas it may be possible that real estate prices have increased by more than inflation in the past, say, 10 years. This may mean that some (stupid) people assume that real estate prices continue to appreciate at this rate in the future. The price of real estates when compared to rents may become unrealistically high so that the rental yield becomes low, and the only reasonable way of obtaining money from real estate investments is price appreciation continuing. No, it will not continue forever. Furthermore, an individual real estate is a very poorly diversified investment. And a very risky investment, too: a mold problem can destroy the entire value of your investment, if you invest in only one property. Real estates are commonly said to be less risky than stocks, but this applies only to large real estate portfolios when compared with large stock portfolios. It is easier to build a large stock portfolio with a small amount of money to invest when compared to building a large real estate portfolio. Thus, I would consider this: how much return are you going to get (by not needing to pay rent, but needing to pay some minor maintenance costs) when purchasing your own home? How much does the home cost? What is the annual return on the investment? Is it larger than smaller when compared to investing the same amount of money in the stock market? As I said, an individual house is a more risky investment than a well-diversified stock portfolio. Thus, if a well-diversified stock portfolio yields 8% annually, I would demand 10% return from an individual house before considering to move my money from stocks to a house."
},
{
"docid": "276830",
"title": "",
"text": "Something that you omitted in your question is whether this prospective purchase is a single family residence (SFR) or some other type of real property. If this is an investment purchase as you say it is, then the only real way to tell it is worth what you are willing to pay is based on the income it produces. Once you complete an income and expense analysis you can get a CAP rate to compare it to other like properties in the area. This is the best way to value income/investment real estate. If you don't know what a CAP rate is and how to calculate it, then you might be over your head a bit. Another important aspect to consider is the reason to pay all cash for this property. The main reason to invest in real estate is to use the banks money as leverage. Again, you should understand these kinds of basic real estate concepts before you dive into purchasing investment property."
},
{
"docid": "423438",
"title": "",
"text": "Your post seems to read as if you want to invest only in real estate rental properties as a start because they will be a reliable investment guaranteed to generate profits that you will be plowing back into buying even more rental properties, but you are willing to consider (possibly in later years) other forms of investment (in real estate) that will not require active participation in the management of the rental properties. While many participants here do own rental real estate and even manage it entirely, for most people, that is only a small part of their investment portfolio, and I suspect that hardly any will recommend real estate as the only investment the way you seem to want to do. Also, you might want to look more closely at the realities of rental real estate operations before jumping in. Things are not necessarily as rosy as they appear to you now. Not all your units will be rented all the time, and the rental income might not always be enough to cover the mortgage payments and the property taxes and the insurance payments and the repairs and maintenance and ... Depreciation of the property is another matter that you might not have thought about. That being said, you can invest in real estate through real estate investment trusts (REITs) or through limited partnerships where you have only a passive role. There are even mutual funds that invest in REITs or in REIT indexes."
},
{
"docid": "387141",
"title": "",
"text": "Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!"
},
{
"docid": "211713",
"title": "",
"text": "The best way to invest in college for your kid is to buy an investment property and rent it out. You might think I am really crazy to ask you to you to buy a real estate property when everyone is running from real estate. Go where others are running away from it. Look where others are not looking. Find out the need for a decent rental property in your city or county and start following the real estate market to understand the real activities including the rental market. I would say follow it for 6 months before jumping in with any investment. And manage your property with good tenants until your kid is ready to go to college. By the time your kid is ready for college, the property would have been paid off by the rents and you can sell the property to send your kid to college."
},
{
"docid": "307173",
"title": "",
"text": "That's a broad question, but I can throw some thoughts at you from personal experience. I'm actually an Australian who has worked in a couple of companies but across multiple countries and I've found out first hand that you have a wealth of opportunities that other people don't have, but you also have a lot of problems that other people won't have. First up, asset classes. Real estate is a popular asset class, but unless you plan on being in each of these countries for a minimum of one to two years, it would be seriously risky to invest in rental residential or commercial real estate. This is because it takes a long time to figure out each country's particular set of laws around real estate, plus it will take a long time to get credit from the local bank institutions and to understand the local markets well enough to select a good location. This leaves you with the classics of stocks and bonds. You can buy stocks and bonds in any country typically. So you could have some stocks in a German company, a bond fund in France and maybe a mutual fund in Japan. This makes for interesting diversification, so if one country tanks, you can potentially be hedged in another. You also get to both benefit and be punished by foreign exchange movements. You might have made a killing on that stock you bought in Tokyo, but it turns out the Yen just fell by 15%. Doh. And to top this off, you are almost certainly going to end up filling out tax returns in each country you have made money in. This can get horribly complicated, very quickly. As a person who has been dealing with the US tax system, I can tell you that this is painful and the US in particular tries to get a cut of your worldwide income. That said, keep in mind each country has different tax rates, so you could potentially benefit from that as well. My advice? Choose one country you suspect you'll spend most of your life in and keep most of your assets there. Make a few purchases in other places, but minimize it. Ultimately most ex-pats move back to their country of origin as friends, family and shared culture bring them home."
},
{
"docid": "97358",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is and certainly will continue to drive up real estate (and, more generally, housing) prices in large cities. However, \"\"bubble\"\" implies an undeserved/irrational increase. I would argue that it is not; people (especially, but not only, millennials) do want live in large, vibrant cities where high-paying jobs exist. And indeed this rise in housing prices drives employers to raise wages. At first glance, this would suggest a vicious cycle, but I believe it is self-regulating. The real danger is economic-geographic stratification; only the richest, highest-skilled will be able to afford living in cities.\""
},
{
"docid": "190385",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold. Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn. A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell. In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare. Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of \"\"Is it worth it to own my own home?\"\") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc. It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence.\""
},
{
"docid": "342554",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\""
},
{
"docid": "61962",
"title": "",
"text": "Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive, which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns. For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc. This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used."
},
{
"docid": "509565",
"title": "",
"text": "It is worth noting first that Real Estate is by no means passive income. The amount of effort and cost involved (maintenance, legal, advertising, insurance, finding the properties, ect.) can be staggering and require a good amount of specialized knowledge to do well. The amount you would have to pay a management company to do the work for you especially with only a few properties can wipe out much of the income while you keep the risk. However, keshlam's answer still applies pretty well in this case but with a lot more variability. One million dollars worth of property should get you there on average less if you do much of the work yourself. However, real estate because it is so local and done in ~100k chunks is a lot more variable than passive stocks and bonds, for instance, as you can get really lucky or really unlucky with location, the local economy, natural disasters, tenants... Taking out loans to get you to the million worth of property faster but can add a lot more risk to the process. Including the risk you wouldn't have any money on retirement. Investing in Real Estate can be a faster way to retirement than some, but it is more risky than many and definitely not passive."
},
{
"docid": "108081",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think the location of the funds is any of your concern. You're buying a CDI, which is: Australian financial instruments The US has no jurisdiction over you, being you an Australian, so unless you own a US-based asset (i.e.: a real-estate in the US, or a US brokerage account), US tax laws shouldn't matter to you."
},
{
"docid": "204579",
"title": "",
"text": "With an appropriate selection within a 401K and if operating expenses are low, you get tax deferred savings and possibly a lower tax bracket for now. The returns vary of course with market fluctuations but for almost 3 years it has been double digit growth on average. Some health care sector funds were up over 40% last year. YMMV. With stocks and mutual funds that hold them, you also are in a sense betting that people want their corporations to grow and succeed. Others do most of the work. Real estate should be part of your savings strategy but understand that they are not kidding when they talk about location. It can lose value. Tenants tend to have some problem part of the year such that some owners find it necessary to have a paid property manager to buffer from their complaints. Other owners get hauled into court and sued as slum lords for allegedly not doing basics. Tenants can ruin your property as well. There is maintenance, repair, replacement, insurance against injury not just property damage, and property taxes. While some of it might be deductible, not all is. You may want to consider that there are considerable ongoing costs and significant risks in time and money with real estate as an investment at a level that you do not incur with a 401K. If you buy mainly to flip, then be aware that if there are unforeseen issues with the house or the market sours as it can, you could be stuck with an immovable drain on your income. If you lose your job could you make payments? Many, many people sadly lost their homes or investment properties that way in 2008-2010."
},
{
"docid": "323145",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have personally invested $5,000 in a YieldStreet offering (a loan being used by a company looking to expand a ridesharing fleet), and would certainly recommend taking a closer look if they fit your investment goals and risk profile. (Here's a more detailed review I wrote on my website.) YieldStreet is among a growing crop of companies launched as a result of legislative and regulatory changes that began with the JOBS Act in 2012 (that's a summary from my website that I wrote after my own efforts to parse the new rules) but didn't fully go into effect until last year. Most of them are in Real Estate or Angel/Venture, so YieldStreet is clearly looking to carve out a niche by assembling a rather diverse collection of offerings (including Real Estate, but also other many other categories). Unlike angel/venture platforms (and more like the Real Estate platforms), YieldStreet only offers secured (asset-backed) investments, so in theory there's less risk of loss of principal (though in practice, these platforms haven't been through a serious stress test). So far I've stuck with relatively short-term investments on the debt crowdfunding platforms (including YieldStreet), and at least for the one I chose, it includes monthly payments of both principal and interest, so you're \"\"taking money off the table\"\" right away (though presumably then are faced with how to redeploy, which is another matter altogether!) My advice is to start small while you acclimate to the various platforms and investment options. I know I was overwhelmed when I first decided to try one out, and the way I got over that was to decide on the maximum I was willing to lose entirely, and then focus on finding the first opportunity that looked reasonable and would maximize what I could learn (in my case it was a $1,000 in a fix-and-flip loan deal via PeerStreet).\""
},
{
"docid": "341399",
"title": "",
"text": "A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower."
},
{
"docid": "353415",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Another option you might consider is rolling over some of that 401K balance into a self-directed IRA or Solo 401K, specifically one with \"\"checkbook privileges\"\". That would permit you to invest directly in a property via your IRA/401K money without it being a loan, and preserving the tax benefits. (You may not be able to roll over from your current employer's 401K while still employed.) That said, regarding your argument that your loan is \"\"paying interest to yourself\"\", while that is technically true, that neglects the opportunity cost -- that money could potentially be earning a much higher (and tax-free) return if it remains in the 401K account than if you take it out and slowly repay it at a modest interest rate. Real Estate can be a great way to diversify, build wealth, and generate income, but a company match and tax-free growth via an employee sponsored retirement account can be a pretty sweet deal too (I actually recently wrote about comparing returns from having a tenant pay your mortgage on a rental property vs. saving in a retirement account on my blog -- in short, tax-free stock-market level returns are pretty compelling, even when someone else is paying your mortage). Before taking rather big steps like borrowing from a 401K or buying a rental property, you might also explore other ways to gain some experience with real estate investing, such as the new crop of REITs open to all investors under SEC Reg A+, some with minimums of $500 or less. In my own experience, there are two main camps of real estate investors: (1) those that love the diversification and income, but have zero interest in active management, and (2) those that really enjoy real estate as a lifestyle and avocation, happy to deal with tenant screening and contractors, etc. You'll want to be careful to be sure which camp you're in before signing on to active investment in a specific property.\""
},
{
"docid": "354880",
"title": "",
"text": "Pretrace Technology is dedicated to provide the professional wireless machine-to-machine (M2M) devices and solutions in the field of GPS tracking and Internet of Things(IoT), adds value to the vertical market applications that generate revenue and market share especially for solution providers. We provide GPS Tracking Devices for Phones to locate at their real-time location. If you want to buy tracking device, please visit www.pretrace.com"
},
{
"docid": "536788",
"title": "",
"text": "The safest real estate investment is to underpay. In most areas the market is very public. Flippers are abundant, because most people want a move-in ready home, and as it is leveraged, they will overpay for that luxury. Buy an under market, and you are safer. The people who lose their shirts buy new condos at market rates at the peak of the market. At the same time, people are purchasing starter homes that need a little work, and stay well above water. Always remember you can't change the location of a home, but you can change almost everything else. Find a well located but beat up home priced well under market, and financially you will generally do very well."
},
{
"docid": "189894",
"title": "",
"text": "In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence. Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500. If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash. Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500. You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account. If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track. I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link."
}
] |
6219 | Are there Investable Real Estate Indices which track Geographical Locations? | [
{
"docid": "146924",
"title": "",
"text": "Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "66993",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Go on a website that has real estate listings. Find similar homes in the same neighborhood and list out the prices. Once you have prices, pick out two with different prices and call the realtor of the more expensive listing. Tell that realtor about the other listing and ask why their listing is more expensive. Compare their answer to the home that you are considering buying. For example, they may say that their house has a newly remodeled kitchen. Does the house you are considering have a newly remodeled kitchen? If so, then use the higher priced listing and throw out the cheaper one. If not, use the cheap listing and throw out the expensive one. Or they might say that the expensive house is in a better location than the cheaper house. Further away from traffic. Easier to get to the highway or public transportation. If so, ask how the location compares to the house you are actually considering. The realtor will tell you if the listings are comparable. When I talk about \"\"similar homes,\"\" I mean homes that are similar in square footage, number of bedrooms, and number of bathrooms. Generally real estate sites will allow you to search by all of these as well as location. After all this, the potential seller may still turn you down. If he really wanted to sell, he'd have suggested a price. He may just be seeing if you're willing to overpay. If so, he could turn down an otherwise reasonable offer. How much he is willing to take is up to him. Note that this would all be easier if you just bought a house the normal way. Then the realtors would do the comparables portion of the work. You might be able to find a realtor or appraiser who would do the work for a set fee. Perhaps your bank would help you with that, as they have to appraise the property to offer a mortgage. You asked if you can buy out a mortgaged house with a mortgage. Yes, you can. That's a pretty normal occurrence. Normally the realtors would make all the necessary arrangements. I'm guessing that a title transfer company could handle that.\""
},
{
"docid": "67641",
"title": "",
"text": "well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property; industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks. Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria."
},
{
"docid": "190385",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold. Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn. A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell. In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare. Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of \"\"Is it worth it to own my own home?\"\") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc. It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence.\""
},
{
"docid": "578597",
"title": "",
"text": "You apparently assume that pouring money into a landlord's pocket is a bad thing. Not necessarily. Whether it makes sense to purchase your own home or to live in a rental property varies based on the market prices and rents of properties. In the long term, real estate prices closely follow inflation. However, in some areas it may be possible that real estate prices have increased by more than inflation in the past, say, 10 years. This may mean that some (stupid) people assume that real estate prices continue to appreciate at this rate in the future. The price of real estates when compared to rents may become unrealistically high so that the rental yield becomes low, and the only reasonable way of obtaining money from real estate investments is price appreciation continuing. No, it will not continue forever. Furthermore, an individual real estate is a very poorly diversified investment. And a very risky investment, too: a mold problem can destroy the entire value of your investment, if you invest in only one property. Real estates are commonly said to be less risky than stocks, but this applies only to large real estate portfolios when compared with large stock portfolios. It is easier to build a large stock portfolio with a small amount of money to invest when compared to building a large real estate portfolio. Thus, I would consider this: how much return are you going to get (by not needing to pay rent, but needing to pay some minor maintenance costs) when purchasing your own home? How much does the home cost? What is the annual return on the investment? Is it larger than smaller when compared to investing the same amount of money in the stock market? As I said, an individual house is a more risky investment than a well-diversified stock portfolio. Thus, if a well-diversified stock portfolio yields 8% annually, I would demand 10% return from an individual house before considering to move my money from stocks to a house."
},
{
"docid": "108081",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't think the location of the funds is any of your concern. You're buying a CDI, which is: Australian financial instruments The US has no jurisdiction over you, being you an Australian, so unless you own a US-based asset (i.e.: a real-estate in the US, or a US brokerage account), US tax laws shouldn't matter to you."
},
{
"docid": "175019",
"title": "",
"text": "You are neglecting a few very important things around real estate transactions in Belgium So in the end a 300K building may cost you more than 340K, let's take some unexpected costs into account and use 350K for remainder of calculation. Even worse if it's newly built (which I doubt) the first percentage is 21% (VAT) instead of 10%. All these costs can be checked on the useful site www.hoeveelkostmijnhuis.be Now, aside from that most banks will and actually have to demand you pay part of all this yourself. So you can't do 5*60K (or 5*70K now). Mostly banks will only finance up to about 90% of the value of the building, so 90% of 300K, which is 270K (5*54K), the other 80K (5*16K) you have to pay yourselves. But it could be the bank goes as low as 80%. Another part to complicate the loan is how much you can pay a month. Since the mortgage crisis they're very strict on this. There are lots of banks that will not allow you to make monthly payments of more than 33% of your monthly income when you are going to live there. This is a nuisance even when buying one house, you want to buy 2. Odds seem low they'll accept high monthly payments because you either need an additional loan or need to pay rent, so don't count on a 5y deal. Now this is all based on a single loan, it will probably be a bit different with multiple loans. However, it is unlikely any bank will accept this, even if all loans are with the same bank. You need to consider the basics of a real-estate loan: A bank trusts you can pay it off and if not they can seize the real-estate hoping to regain their initial investment. It's very hard to seize a complete asset if only one out of 5 loan-takers defected. You could maybe do this with another less restrictive/higher risk type of loan but rates will be a lot higher (think 5-6% instead of 1.5%). And don't underestimate the running costs: for that price and 5 rooms in that city you're likely looking at an older building. Expect lots of cost for maintenance and keeping the building according to code. Also expect costs for repairs (you rent to students...). You'll also have to pay quite a bit of money on insurances and of course on real estate taxes (which are average in Ghent). Also factor in that currently there is not a housing shortage for Ghent students so you might not always have a guaranteed occupation. Also take into account responsibility: if a fire breaks out or the house collapses or a gas leak occurs, you might be sued. It doesn't matter if you're at fault, it's costly and a big nuisance. Simply because you didn't think of any of this: don't do this. It's better to invest in real estate funds. But if you still think you can do better then all the landlords Ghent is riddled with, don't do it as a personal investment. Create a BVBA, put some investment in here (like 10-20K each), approach a bank with a serious business plan to get the rest of the money as a loan (towards a single entity - your BVBA) and get things going. When the money comes in you can either give yourselves a salary or pay out profits on the shares. You may be confused about how rich you can become because we as a nation tend to overestimate the profitability of real estate. It's really not that much better than other investments (otherwise everybody would only invest in real estate funds). There are a few things that skew our vision however:"
},
{
"docid": "3155",
"title": "",
"text": "> I don't have any data for this, but I believe online sales would increase as brand awareness increases. There are also benefits where you can buy online and have it delivered, but return in person. Right, right...I wonder if it's beneficial sometimes to have a physical location because the consumer is less likely to make the purchase if they have to go through the process of shipping it back. Would be very interesting to see if after X amount of time if a brand is still as prominent online as it was in Y location after it left physically, or does leaving physically cause a degradation in brand awareness and thusforth sales. >Probably low rents. Commercial real estate is a difficult business. Hot locations are always rented. Bad locations will do anything to keep their tenants. Figured. I wonder how common re-negotiations are. >I have never seen either of those items be accepted for return... They do, and then they are damaged out. Perhaps this is part the answer, in order to have a lenient return policy physical locations are part of the equation to decrease loss."
},
{
"docid": "568629",
"title": "",
"text": "Wow! First, congratulations! You are both making great money. You should be able to reach your goals. Are we on the right track ? Are we doing any mistakes which we could have avoided ? Please advice if there is something that we should focus more into ! I would prioritize as follows: Get on the same page. My first red flag is that you are listing your assets separately. You and your wife own property together and are raising your daughter together. The first thing is to both be on the same page with your combined income and assets. This is critical. Set specific goals for the future. Dreaming and big-picture life planning will be the foundation for building a detailed plan for reaching your goals. You will see more progress with more sacrifice. If you both are not equally excited about the goals, you will not both be equally willing to sacrifice lifestyle now. You have the income now to be able to set yourselves up to do whatever you want in 10 years, if you can agree on what you want. Hire a financial planner you trust. Interview people, ask someone who is where you want to be in 10 years. You need someone with experience that can guide you through these questions and understands how to manage your income stream. Start saving for retirement in tax-advantaged accounts. This should be as much as 10%-15% of your income combined, so $30k-$45k per year. You need to start diversifying your investments. Real estate is great, but I would never recommend it as this large a percentage of net worth. Start saving for your child's education. Hard to say what you need here, since I don't know your goals. A financial planner should assist you with this. Get rid of your debt. Out of your $2.1M of rental real estate and land, you have $1.4M of debt. It will be difficult to start a business with that much additional debt. It will also put stress on your retirement that you don't need. You are taking on lots of risk here. I would sell all but maybe one of the properties and let it cash flow. This will free up cash to start investing for retirement or future business too. Buy more rental in the future with cash only. You have plenty of income to do it this way, and you will be setting yourself up for a great future. At this point you can continue to pile funds into any/all your investments, with the goal of using the funds to start a business or to live on. If all your investments are tied up in real estate, you wont have anything to draw on if needed for a business opportunity. You need to weigh this out in your goal and planning. What should we do to prepare for a comfortable retirement and safety You cannot plan for or see all scenarios. However, good planning will give you more options and more choices. Investing driven by fear will set you up for failure. Spend less than you make. Be patient. Be generous. Cheers!"
},
{
"docid": "354880",
"title": "",
"text": "Pretrace Technology is dedicated to provide the professional wireless machine-to-machine (M2M) devices and solutions in the field of GPS tracking and Internet of Things(IoT), adds value to the vertical market applications that generate revenue and market share especially for solution providers. We provide GPS Tracking Devices for Phones to locate at their real-time location. If you want to buy tracking device, please visit www.pretrace.com"
},
{
"docid": "390751",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A REIT is a real estate investment trust. It is a company that derives most of its gross income from and holds most of its assets in real estate investments, which, in this case, include either real property, mortgages, or both. They provide a way for investors to get broad exposure in a real estate market without going to buy a bunch of properties themselves. It also provides diversification within the real estate segment since REITs will often (but not necessarily) have either way more properties than an individual could get or have very large properties (like a few resorts) that would be too expensive for any one investor. By law, they must pay at least 90% of their taxable income as dividends to investors, so they typically have a good dividend rate (possibly but not necessarily) at the expense of growth of the stock price. Some of those dividends may be tax advantaged and some will not. An MLP is a master limited partnership. These trade on the exchange like corporations, but they are not corporations. (Although often used in common language as synonyms, corporation and company are not the same thing. Corporation is one way to organize a company under the law.) They are partnerships, and when you buy a share you become a partner in the company. This is an alternative form of ownership to being a shareholding. In this case you are a limited partner, which means that you have limited liability as with stock. The shares may appreciate or not, just like a stock, and you can generally sell them back to the market for a capital gain or loss under the same rules as a stock. The main difference here from a practical point of view is taxes: Partnerships (of any type) do no pay tax - Instead their income and costs are passed to the individual partners, who must then include it on their personal returns (Form 1040, Schedule E). The partnership will send each shareholder a Schedule K-1 form at tax time. This means you may have \"\"phantom income\"\" that is taxable even though cash never flowed through your hands since you'll have to account for the income of the partnership. Many partnerships mitigate this by making cash distributions during the year so that the partners do actually see the cash, but this is not required. On the other hand, if it does happen, it's often characterized as a return of capital, which is not taxable in the year that you receive it. A return of capital reduces your cost basis in the partnership and will eventually result in a larger capital gain when you sell your shares. As with any investment, there are pros and cons to each investment type. Of the two, the MLP is probably less like a \"\"regular\"\" stock since getting the Schedule K-1 may require some extra work at tax time, especially if you've never seen one before. On the other hand, that may be worth it to you if you can find one that's appreciating in value and still returning capital at a good rate since this could be a \"\"best of everything\"\" situation where you defer tax and - when you eventually do pay, you pay at favorable capital gains rates - but still manage to get your cash back in hand before you sell. (In case not clear, my comments about tax are specific to the US. No idea how this is treated elsewhere.) By real world example, I guess you meant a few tickers in each category? You can find whole lists online. I just did a quick search (\"\"list of MLP\"\" and \"\"list of REIT\"\"), found a list, and have provided the top few off of the first list that I found. The lists were alphabetical by company name, so there's no explicit or implicit endorsement of these particular investments. Examples of REIT: Examples of MLP:\""
},
{
"docid": "482077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "322806",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\""
},
{
"docid": "180582",
"title": "",
"text": "Cristina from Avangate :) Well, most of your shoppers will not even know that you outsource online purchase activity to a payment provider, unless the solution you select, is not capable to integrate with the look and feel on your business. If talking about Avangate, I can share some insights that our clients buyers usually appreciate: 1. Geographical Location - translated payment pages based on IP that present also the price in local currency and allow them to pay with a local payment method, if available (ex. Brazil - credit card with instalments - Portuguese); 2. Financial Support - specific area, called myAccount, where shoppers can track relevant info about how to renew/upgrade or get in contact with the merchant; 3. Taxes and VAT management - if you are targeting both B2C and B2B customers, the possibility of getting an invoice that can be presented for accounting/bookkeeping is very important. Should you be interested in having a more detailed discussion, make sure to get in touch with me - I'll be happy to chat :) [email protected]"
},
{
"docid": "150650",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that \"\"long-term investments\"\" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is \"\"net out\"\" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in. Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)\""
},
{
"docid": "453624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\""
},
{
"docid": "173431",
"title": "",
"text": "Wow, hard to believe not a single answer mentioned investing in one of the best asset classes for tax purposes...real estate. Now, I'm not advising you to rush out and buy an investment property. But rather than just dumping your money into mutual funds...over which you have almost 0 control...buy some books on real estate investing. There are plenty of areas to get into, rehabs, single family housing rentals, multifamily, apartments, mobile home parks...and even some of those can have their own specialties. Learn now! And yes, you do have some control over real estate...you control where you buy, so you pick your local market...you can always force appreciation by rehabbing...if you rent, you approve your renters. Compared to a mutual fund run by someone you'll never meet, buying stocks in companies you've likely never even heard of...you have far more control. No matter what area of investing you decide to go into, there is a learning curve...or you will pay a penalty. Go slow, but move forward. Also, all the advice on using your employer's matching (if available) for 401k should be the easiest first step. How do you turn down free money? Besides, the bottom line on your paycheck may not change as much as you think it might...and when weighed against what you get in return...well worth the time to get it setup and active."
},
{
"docid": "387717",
"title": "",
"text": "Real estate investment is a proven creator of wealth. Check into the history of the rich and you will find real estate investment. Starting your investment in multi-family is a great idea. It is a good way to gain experience in real estate while exponentially increasing cash flow. If you turn the properties over to a reputable property management company, your cash flow will be a little less but so will your headaches. (Expect to pay 8 - 10% of gross income.) You could start investing now by looking into discounted real estate such as foreclosures, tax sales, short sales etc while the market is still depressed. This way your return on investment should be higher. From there you could expand into land development (i.e. subdivision) or commercial investments. Commercial properties with triple net leases can be a great low-stress investment opportunity (but they take more cash upfront). Attending some local real estate investment classes would be a great idea for starters."
},
{
"docid": "189894",
"title": "",
"text": "In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence. Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500. If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash. Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500. You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account. If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track. I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link."
},
{
"docid": "61962",
"title": "",
"text": "Investopedia has this note where you'd want the contrapositive point: The interest rate, commonly bandied about by the media, has a wide and varied impact upon the economy. When it is raised, the general effect is a lessening of the amount of money in circulation, which works to keep inflation low. It also makes borrowing money more expensive, which affects how consumers and businesses spend their money; this increases expenses for companies, lowering earnings somewhat for those with debt to pay. Finally, it tends to make the stock market a slightly less attractive place to investment. As for evidence, I'd question that anyone could really take out all the other possible economic influences to prove a direct co-relation between the Federal Funds rate and the stock market returns. For example, of the dozens of indices that are stock related, which ones would you want that evidence: Total market, large-cap, small-cap, value stocks, growth stocks, industrials, tech, utilities, REITs, etc. This is without considering other possible investment choices such as direct Real Estate holdings, compared to REITs that is, precious metals and collectibles that could also be used."
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "128698",
"title": "",
"text": "As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "150607",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty. Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors. As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you \"\"can\"\" pay off the loan in a short time. If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above.\""
},
{
"docid": "399259",
"title": "",
"text": "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans. Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it. Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later. It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans. You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan. How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment."
},
{
"docid": "6339",
"title": "",
"text": "Should I use the profit to pay down student loans or just roll it into my next house in order to have a lower mortgage amount? Calculate the amount of interest in each scenario, where the two scenarios are: Use extra cash to pay down student loans, take out a full mortgage. Use extra cash to make a big down payment on the next house, keep paying down student loans at normal rate. In both scenarios the student loan rate will stay the same. However in the second scenario you may get a lower interest rate from making a larger down payment. So then calculate the total interest resulting from each scenario: student loan rateXremaining student loan balance=student loan interest new mortgage rateXnew mortgage balance=mortgage interest scenario 1 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest student loan rateXstudent loan balance = student loan interest new mortgage rate with large down paymentXnew mortgage balance after large down payment = mortgage interest scenario 2 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest Whichever scenario's interest is lower will save money."
},
{
"docid": "576694",
"title": "",
"text": "Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee..."
},
{
"docid": "92894",
"title": "",
"text": "Well to start with I would make sure that the interest total you are collecting each month is greater than the interest total you are paying each month on your credit card debt. So if you have $200 a month in interest you pay the credit card company I would make sure that the interest you collect on the loan is more than $200 a month. And make sure that you use some portion of the principle payment to pay down the credit card debt so that you are still even or ahead of the interest you owe the credit card company. Beyond that I would want the rate to be higher than the borrower could expect from a bank. This will incentivize the borrower to either pay it off early or refinance the loan through a bank effectively paying it off early for you. Anything that shifts the risk off of you and onto someone else is in your favor here. You could also implement some sort of final payment fee and reduce this fee by a certain amount (presumably up to 100%) if it is paid off early. I would graduate that amount so there is still incentive if the buyer misses the original date but still incentive to meet the date. If the loan was for 10 years then I would probably do around .5% per year early. I would also get an attorney to draw up the loan paperwork to make sure that you(and potentially your heirs) are covered should you need to recover from a default, bankruptcy, or other potential problems. I would bet the lawyer fees will save you 5x+ the amount if only in headaches. And if you are dealing with family the lawyer makes a great fall guy to say I wish I could do that but the lawyer won't let me if the family member tries to take advantage."
},
{
"docid": "380382",
"title": "",
"text": "An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month."
},
{
"docid": "407726",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a \"\"safe rate of withdrawal\"\"? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US, though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used. Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking. Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris mentioned. There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity. It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities.\""
},
{
"docid": "321619",
"title": "",
"text": "This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither."
},
{
"docid": "45353",
"title": "",
"text": "You should plan 1-3 months for an emergency fund. Saving 6 months of expenses is recommended by many, but you have a lot of goals to accomplish, and youth is impatient. Early in your life, you have a lot of building (saving) that you need to do. You can find a good car for under $5000. It might take some effort, and you might not get quite the car you want, but if you save for 5-6 months you should have a decent car. My son is a college student and bought a sedan earlier this year for about $4000. Onto the house thing. As you said, at $11,000*2=$22,000 expenses yearly, plus about $10,000 saved, you are making low 30's. Using a common rule of thumb of 25% for housing, you really cannot afford more than about $600-700/month for housing -- you probably want to wait on that first house for awhile. Down payments really should be about 20%, and depending upon the area of the country, a modest house might be $120,000 or $520,000. Even on a $120,000, the 20% down payment would be $24,000. As you have student loans ($20,000), you should put together a plan to pay them off, perhaps allocating half your savings amount to paying down the student loans and half to saving? As you are young, you should have strong salary gains in the first few years, and once you are closer to $40,000/year, you might find the numbers working better for housing. My worry is that you are spending $22,000 out of about $32,000 for living expenses. That you are saving is great, and you are putting aside a good amount. But, you want to target saving 30-40%, if you can."
},
{
"docid": "435105",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Much of the interest on a loan comes in the first years of a mortgage, so the sooner you can pay that off, the better. But let's see what the numbers say. If you have a loan at 4%, principal of $100,000, a term of 30 years, then this gives monthly payments of $477.42 (using the Excel PMT function). If you sell the house after precisely 5 years worth of payments, then you have made $28,644.92 in payments, you still owe $90,924.93. Suppose you sell the house for $100,000. That means you will be in the hole for: $100,000 - $90,924.93 - $28,644.92 = -$19,569.85 Now, suppose you pay an extra $50 per month over the five years. The same calculation becomes: $100,000 - $87,659.98 - $31,644.92 = -$19,304.90 So in this scenario, which is a little simplistic, you are $264.95 better off. The question you have to ask is whether you could have done better investing the $3,000 in extra payments somewhere else. The CAGR in doing this is 1.7%, so you might be better off putting the money away. Running the same numbers for a 6% mortgage the CAGR you have is about 2.7%. Edit I've added a Google Docs spreadsheet (read-only) that you can download and play with. Feel free to correct anything you find amiss! Edit 2 OK, so I've had a look at what JoeTaxpayer is saying in the comments below, and now I agree: The CAGR should be 4%. Where I want wrong was to assume that the $50 per month payments over the five years are worth $50 * 5 * 12 = $3000. This neglects the \"\"time value of money\"\" --- having small amounts of money periodically, rather than all of it in a lump sum. Including this makes the \"\"effective\"\" value of the monthly $50 payments $2714.95 written as =PV(0.04/12,60,-50) in Excel or Google Docs. I've added a tab to the original spreadsheet to show the different calculations. Note that it still doesn't quite come to 4%, but I guess it's a minor error in the sheet. NB: I know, I'm leaving out mortgage interest tax relief, costs for selling etc. etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "534493",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You owe only $38,860 to pay off your loan now, possibly less. From what you say about your loan, tell me if I got this right: 30 year loan $75,780 original loan amount 9% annual interest rate $609.74 monthly payment You have made 272 payments Payment number 273 is not due until late 2019, possibly early 2020 If I have correctly figured out what you have done, you have been making monthly payments early by pulling out payment coupons before they are due and sending them in with payment. You are about 4 years ahead on your payments. If I have this correct, if you called the bank and asked \"\"what is my payoff amount if I want to pay this loan off tomorrow\"\" they would answer something like $38,860. When you pay a loan off early, you don't just owe the sum of the coupons still remaining. In your case, you owe at least $16,000 less! Indeed, if there is some way to convert your 4 years of pre-payments into an early payment, you would owe even less than $38,860. I don't know banking law well enough to know if that is possible. You should stop pulling coupons out of your book and paying them early. Any payments you make between now and when your next payment is actually due (late 2019 sometime?) you should tell the bank you want applied as an early payment. This will bring your total owed amount down much faster than pulling coupons out of your book and making payments years early. If there is someone in your family who understands banking pretty well, maybe they can help you sort this out. I don't know who to refer you to for more personal help, but I really do think you have more than $16,000 to gain by changing how you are paying your mortgage. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "242008",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First off, your commitment to paying down debt and apparent strong relationship with your brother is admirable. However, I think you are overcomplicating your situation and potentially endangering your relationship by attempting to combine debts in this way. You could consider a simple example where you have interest bearing at 5% and your brother has interest bearing debt at 10%. If you both pay down his higher interest debt first, and then both pay down your debt after, then clearly you will have paid less interest combined. But, by waiting to pay off your debt until later, you have accrued more interest yourself. So who has saved money by doing this? Your brother. You will have paid (let's say, without getting into balances) $50 extra interest to save your brother $70 in interest. So why would you want to give your brother $50? Total interest savings between both of you in this simplified example are $20. So, in theory your brother could pay you $60 after the fact, effectively meaning you end up $10 ahead, and your brother ends up $10 ahead. Here, you end up in a position where you could still say, in theory 'we both came out ahead'. But what if your brother loses his job while you're both paying off your debt, and he can't help any more? Does he accrue some type of calculated interest until he pays you back? What if he's off work for 2 years and still owes you 30k? What if he just never makes his payments to you on time? At what point do you resent your brother for failing to uphold his end of the deal? Money and friends don't mix. Money and family mixes even worse. In rare circumstances where you absolutely must mix family and money, get everything in writing. Get it signed, make it legal. Outline all details of the transaction, including interest rates, and examples of how the balances calculate. In 5 years when things go haywire, following the letter of the law is what will keep you from becoming enemies. But with family, often people have an expectation that \"\"while we agreed I would pay x, he's my brother, so he should take pity on me and allow me to pay only y, if I need to\"\". Finally, to your question about how to calculate amounts to pay: it will be very complicated. You will need to track minimum balance payments, interest rates, and even potentially the lost income which one of you gives up to pay down the other's debt. You could do these things in a simplified way close to what I've set out above, but then ultimately one of you will lose out. If you pay down your debts first, how can you calculate the lost living potential for your brother, who might want to buy a house but can't save for a down payment for an extra year? What if he has to move, and without sufficient down payment, he needs to pay extra Mortgage Insurance on his loan from the bank? Will you compensate him for that? My recommendation, if you haven't caught it yet, is Do not do this. Your potential savings are not going to be worth the potential heartache of breaking your relationship with your brother. Instead, look at joining your minds, not your money. Set goals for yourselves individually, and hold each other accountable. Make this an open conversation between yourselves, as it can be difficult to talk about finances with other people. Your support will help the other person, and hopefully help keep you on track as well. To provide numerical context for potential savings, which you appear to still want, consider the numbers you've provided [you have 40k debt at 10%, your brother has 20k of debt at 5%]. Let's assume you each can pay up to 20k against the principal of your loans each year. Finally assume for simplicity that you also have enough to pay off interest as it gets charged [so no compounding], and you pay in even instalments each year. Mathematically that means your interest each year is equal to your interest rate * your average annual balance. If you each go alone, then you will accrue 10% on an average balance of [(40k+20k)/2] = 30k per year, which equals 3,000 in interest in year 1, then [(20k+0)/2] = 10k * .10 = 1,000 interest in year 2. Total interest for you = 4,000. Your brother will accrue [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 = 500 in interest in total. Total interest for both of you combined would be 4,500. If you pool your debt snowball, then you will clear your debt first. So the interest on your debt would be [(40k+0k)/2] = 20k * .1 = 2,000. Your brother's debt would fully accrue 5% of interest on the full balance in year 1, so interest in year 1 would be 20k * .05 = 1,000. In year 2, your brother's debt would be cleared half way through the year; interest charged would be [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 * 50% = 250. You would then owe your brother 10k, which you would pay him over the remainder of year 2. His total interest paid to the bank would be 1,000 + 250 = 1,250. Total interest for both of you combined would be 3,250. In a simplified payment example using your numbers, maximum interest savings would be about $1,250 combined. How you allocate those savings would be pretty subjective; assuming a 50:50 split, this yields $625 in savings to each of you. If you aren't able to each save 20k per year, then savings would be greater for snowballing, because otherwise it will take you even longer to pay off your high interest debt. This is similar to your brother loaning you 20k today that you can use to pay off your debts, after which you pay him back so he can pay off his. Because you will owe him 20k for 2 years, but an average of ~10k at any one time [because he slowly advances it to you today, and you slowly pay him back until the end of year 2], at $650 in benefit passed to your brother, this is roughly equivalent to him loaning you money at 6.5% interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "482183",
"title": "",
"text": "It looks like the rate on that first loan is 6-2/3%? When I look at $72000 principal and a $500 payment, I'm seeing a long term, 24 years. Not 60, but not good either. Yes, as you pay a bit of principal, the next payment has less interest and even more principal. I hope your degree is in a field that's lucrative. Or that you're able to get a job that qualifies you for loan forgiveness over time. I'm sorry that advice might seem weak, but aside from that, the best I can offer is to live well beneath your means, i.e. continue to live like a student, and make additional payments. As far as bi-weekly goes, the lender may not accept partial payments. Set aside the money every two weeks and when you have extra money just make an extra payment amount toward principal. To pay this off as fast as possible, I'd make as high an extra payment as I could each month to the loan with the higher rate. If the rates are the same, pay it off to the one with the lower balance. With respect to the debt snowballers, followers of The David, say the rates are simply close, say .25% apart, with the lower balance having the lower rate. If you were to pay this one first, it would occur sooner, of course, and free up that monthly payment, helping your cash flow. But, it comes at a cost. Note - if, as Noah suggests, the rates are the same, I'd advise to make all extra payments toward the lower balance. That will get you to the point where you've freed up that cash flow for other purposes, whether it's to focus on the higher loan, or anything else you need this for."
},
{
"docid": "123013",
"title": "",
"text": "On paper the whole 6 months living costs sounds (and is) great, but in real life there are a lot of things that you need to consider. For example, my first car was constantly falling apart and was an SUV that got 16MPG. I have to travel for work (about 300 miles per week) so getting a sedan that averages close to 40MPG saves me more in gas and maintenance than the monthly payment for the new car costs. When our apartment lease was up, the new monthly rent would have been $1685 per month, we got a 30 year mortgage with a monthly payment of $1372. So buying a house actually let us put aside more each month. We have just under 3 months of living expenses set aside (1 month in liquid assets, 2 months in a brokerage account) and I worry about it. I wish we had a better buffer, but in our case the house and car made more sense as an early investment compared to just squirreling away all our savings. Also, do you have any debt? Paying off debt (student loans, credit card debt, etc.) should often take top priority. Have some rainy day funds, of course, but pay down debts, and then create a personal financial plan for what works best in your situation. That would be my suggestion."
},
{
"docid": "172084",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Should I allow the credit cards to be paid out of escrow in one lump sum? Or should I take the cash and pay the cards down over a few months. I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? Will the money you save by increasing your credit score (assuming this statement is true) be larger than by eliminating the interest payments for the credit card payments over \"\"a few months\"\" (13% APR at $24,000 is $3120 a year in interest; $260 a month, so if \"\"a few months\"\" is three, that would cost over $700 - note that as you pay more principal the overall amount of interest decreases, so the \"\"a year\"\" in interest could go down depending on the principal payments). Also, on a related note regarding credit score, it doesn't look good to have more than a third of a credit line available balance exceeded (see number 2 here: http://credit.about.com/od/buildingcredit/tp/building-good-credit.htm).\""
},
{
"docid": "538014",
"title": "",
"text": "Not that I doubted everyone's assumption but I wanted to see the math so I did some spreadsheet hacking. I assumed a monthly payments for 30 years which left us with total payments of 483.89. I then assumed we'd pay an extra $200/month in one of two scenarios. Scenario 1 we just paid that $200 directly to the lender. In scenario 2 we set the extra $200 aside every month until we were able to pay off the $10k at 7%. I assumed that the minimum payments were allocated proportionately and the overpayments were allocated evenly. That meant we paid off loan 5 at about month 77, loan 4 in month 88, loan 3 in month 120, loan 2 in month 165, and loan 1 in month 170. Getting over to scenario 2 where we pay $483.89 to lender and save $200 separately. In month 48 we've saved $9600 relative to the principle remaining in loan 3 of $9547. We pay that off and we're left with loan 1,2,4,5 with a combined principle of about $60930. At this point we are now going to make payments of 683.89 instead of saving towards principle. Now our weighted average interest rate is 6.800% instead of 6.824%. We can calculate the number of payments left given a principle of 60930, interest of 6.8%, and payment of 683.89 to be 124.4 months left for a total of 172.4 months Conclusion: Scenario 1 pays off the debt 3 months sooner with the same monthly expenditure as scenario 2."
},
{
"docid": "479213",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "243065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\""
},
{
"docid": "590623",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here."
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "470716",
"title": "",
"text": "If the savings rate is the same as the loan rate, mathematically it doesn't make any difference whether you pay down the loan more and save less or vice versa. However, if the loan rate is higher than the savings rate it's better to pay it down as fast as possible. The chart below compares paying down the loan and saving equally (the gradual scenario), versus paying down the loan quickly at 2 x $193 and then saving 2 x $193. The savings rate, for illustration, is 2%. Paying quickly pays down the loan completely by month 51. On the other hand, in the gradual scheme the loan can't be paid down (with the savings) until month 54, which then leaves 3 months less for saving. In conclusion, it's better to pay down the higher rate loan first. Practically speaking, it may be useful to have some savings available."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "187526",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, excellent choice to say no to non-subsidized loans! But I'd say you are cutting things very close either way, and you need to face up to that now. $35/mo extra at the end of the month is \"\"within the noise\"\" of financial life, meaning you should think of it as essentially $0 each month or even negative money, since one vet bill/school books/unforeseen problem could remove it for the entire year, easily. You are leaving yourself no buffer. But by taking the loan, unless you are (as Joe said) socking away savings to pay for it upon graduation, you are guaranteeing you'll leave college with debt, which I think should be avoided if you can. Could you do a hybrid plan in which you worked hard to do the following?: If you do these things or something along these lines, the loan is probably OK; if not, I'd be concerned about taking it. [Probably unnecessary, but: Keep in mind that student loans are not excusable by bankruptcy, so one is on the hook for them no matter what]. Also consider whether you can take a semester off now and then to catch up financially. The key is to really stay far from the edge of any financial cliffs.\""
},
{
"docid": "224062",
"title": "",
"text": "This depends in part on the bank holding your loan and the loan agreement. Some loans will accept partial payments and apply them immediately; some will not accept partial payments at all, and some will accept the payment but hold the funds until the payment is at least your complete payment. You should check your loan agreement to find out how the payment will be processed, as well as how it will be applied. It also is relevant how interest is calculated and accrued; if your interest is a daily rate, then you may save some money this way, but if it's a monthly rate then you wouldn't necessarily. Either way you wouldn't really save very much money; in your particular case you'd be saving $0.15 per month (.025/24 = .001 semimonthly interest rate, $150 paid halfway through the month means you pay .001*150 less interest). Is that $0.15 worth it? Up to you I guess. If you're paying that for 5 year loan, you'll end up ahead $9 at the end of it. Finally, there is a kind of program often offered to new mortgage holders where you pay every two weeks (like your paycheck) and thus 'pay down your mortgage faster by saving on interest', which is true, but it's because you make 26 half payments per year instead of 12 full (or 24 half) payments, not primarily because of particular savings on interest due to timing (and of course the program offerer has to make money somewhere!). Paying an extra 8.33% each year is certainly a good way to pay off your loan faster, but it's not primarily due to the frequency of those payments."
},
{
"docid": "107898",
"title": "",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""
},
{
"docid": "451457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\""
},
{
"docid": "581697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First to actually answer the question \"\"how long at these rates/payments?\"\"- These is nothing magic or nefarious about what the bank is doing. They add accrued interest and take your payment off the new total. I'd make higher payments to the 8.75% debt until it's gone, $100/mo extra and be done. The first debt, if you bump it to $50 will be paid in 147 months, at $75/mo, 92 months. Everything you pay above the minimum goes right to the principal balance and gets you closer to paying it off. The debt snowball is not the ideal way to pay off your debt. Say I have one 24% credit card the bank was nice enough to give me a $20,000 line of credit on. I also have 20 cards each with $1000 in credit, all at 6%. The snowball dictates that the smallest debt be paid first, so while I pay the minimum on the 24% card, the 6% cards get paid off one by one, but I'm supposed to feel good about the process, as I reduce the number of cards every few months. The correct way to line up debt is to pay off the (tax adjusted) highest rate first, as an extra $100 to the 24% card saves you $2/mo vs 50 cents/mo for the 6% cards. I wrote an article discussing the Debt Snowball which links to a calculator where you can see the difference in methods. I note that if the difference from lowest to highest rate is small, the Snowball method will only cost you a small amount more. If, by coincidence, the balances are close, the difference will also be small. The above aside, it's the rest of your situation that will tell you the right path for you. For example, a matched 401(k) deposit should take priority over most debt repayment. The $11,000 might be better conserved for a house downpayment as that $66/mo is student loan and won't count as the housing debt, rather \"\"other debt\"\" and part of the higher ratio when qualifying for the mortgage. If you already have taken this into account, by all means, pay off the 8.75% debt asap, then start paying off the 3% faster. Keep in mind, this is likely the lowest rate debt one can have and once paid off, you can't withdraw it again. So it's important to consider the big picture first. (Are you depositing to a retirement account? Is it a 401(k) and are you getting any matching from the company?)\""
},
{
"docid": "321619",
"title": "",
"text": "This is assuming that you are now making some amount X per month which is more than the income you used to have as a student. (Otherwise, the question seems rather moot.) All figures should be net amounts (after taxes). First, figure out what the difference in your cost of living is. That is, housing, electricity, utilities, the basics that you need to have to have a place in which to live. I'm not considering food costs here unless they were subsidized while you were studying. Basically, you want to figure out how much you now have to spend extra per month for basic sustenance. Then, figure out how much more you are now making, compared to when you were a student. Subtract the sustenance extra from this to get your net pay increase. After that is when it gets trickier. Basically, you want to set aside or invest as much of the pay increase as possible, but you probably have other expenses now that you didn't before and which you cannot really do that much about. This mights be particular types of clothes, commute fares (car keepup, gas, bus pass, ...), or something entirely different. Anyway, decide on a savings goal, as a percentage of your net pay increase compared to when you were a student. This might be 5%, 10% or (if you are really ambitious) 50% or more. Whichever number you pick, make sure it's reasonable giving your living expenses, and keep in mind that anything is better than nothing. Find a financial institution that offers a high-interest savings account, preferably one with free withdrawals, and sign up for one. Each and every time you get paid, figure out how much to save based on the percentage you determined (if your regular case is that you get the same payment each time, you can simply set up an automated bank transfer), put that in the savings account and, for the moment, forget about that money. Try your best to live only on the remainder, but if you realize that you set aside too much, don't be afraid to tap into the savings account. Adjust your future deposits accordingly and try to find a good balance. At the end of each month, deposit whatever remains in your regular account into your savings account, and if that is a sizable amount of money, consider raising your savings goal a little. The ultimate goal should be that you don't need to tap into your savings except for truly exceptional situations, but still keep enough money outside of the savings account to cater to some of your wants. Yes, bank interest rates these days are often pretty dismal, and you will probably be lucky to find a savings account that (especially after taxes) will even keep up with inflation. But to start with, what you should be focusing on is not to make money in terms of real value appreciation, but simply figuring out how much money you really need to sustain a working life for yourself and then walking that walk. Eventually (this may take anywhere from a couple of months to a year or more), you should have settled pretty well on an amount that you feel comfortable with setting aside each month and just letting be. By that time, you should have a decently sized nest egg already, which will help you get over rough spots, and can start thinking about other forms of investing some of what you are setting aside. Whenever you get a net pay raise of any kind (gross pay raise, lower taxes, bonus, whichever), increase your savings goal by a portion of that raise. Maybe give yourself 60% of the raise and bank the remaining 40%. That way, you are (hopefully!) always increasing the amount of money that you are setting aside, while also reaping some benefits right away. One major upside of this approach is that, if you lose your job, not only will you have that nest egg, you will also be used to living on less. So you will have more money in the bank and less monthly expenses, which puts you in a significantly better position than if you had only one of those, let alone neither."
},
{
"docid": "69150",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While the question is highly subjective as you noted, putting extra money will of course save you interest payments, it depends on how much \"\"enjoyment\"\" is worth now. I would suggest you to not be overly aggressive as you might dig yourself a ditch, your minimum monthly payments might get adjust upwards if some of these loans are student loans as it might seem you have a higher degree of disposable income to play with. Be aggressive in paying them off but not to aggressive, I also think the interest is tax deductible. What it really comes down to is, how much more interest do you want to pay them for enjoyment now, 50 months is not long its just north of 4 years. I'd say if you think you can put 800 extra towards them, don't. Instead if it were me I would put an extra 400 towards the highest until its paid and then take the 400 plus the monthly minimum and add that to the next highest and keep the other 400 for a rainy day, you will still get paid off quick but will leave yourself some scratch if necessary.\""
},
{
"docid": "592192",
"title": "",
"text": "My advice is that if you've got the money now to pay off your student loans, do so. You've saved up all of that money in one year's time. If you pay it off now, you'll eliminate all of those monthly payments, you'll be done paying interest, and you should be able to save even more toward your business over the next year. Over the next year, you can get started on your business part time, while still working full time to pile up cash toward your business. Neither you nor your business will be paying interest on anything, and you'll start out in a very strong position. The interest on your student loans might be tax deductible, depending on your situation. However, this doesn't really matter a whole lot, in my opinion. You've got about $22k in debt, and the interest will cost you roughly $1k over the next year. Why pay $1k to the bank to gain maybe $250 in tax savings? Starting a business is stressful. There will be good times and bad. How long will it take you to pay off your debt at $250 a month? 5 or 6 years, probably. By eliminating the debt now, you'll be able to save up capital for your business even faster. And when you experience some slow times in your business, your monthly expenses will be less."
},
{
"docid": "63690",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings. Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend."
},
{
"docid": "433171",
"title": "",
"text": "You're halfway done with the debt elimination. Keep up the good work. The student loan debt will get in your way a couple of ways when you look to finance a house. First, your debt to income ratio will be higher than without the debt, so you'll be able to qualify for a smaller loan with the debt than without. Second, you'll have the student loan payments in addition to your mortgage. This may wear on you. I'd look for ways to make extra money to knock out those student loan debts ASAP. The rates aren't horrible. That, and I think there is still some time before the housing market bottoms out, so you don't need to rush into the house. If you can handle the entire debt load (student loans + mortgage) then if you save up for the down payment, that money isn't being used to pay down your student loans, and paying your students loans off won't get any easier when you get a mortgage on top of that."
},
{
"docid": "33350",
"title": "",
"text": "By paying the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan you will save $23.30 in interest every month. By paying the $11,000 into the 3.625% loan you will save $33.20 in interest every month. If your objective is to get rid of one loan quicker so repayments can go to the other loan to pay off sooner, I would put the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan and pay that off as quick as possible, then put any extra payments into the mortgage at 3.625%. Pay only the minimum amounts into the 0% car loan as this is not costing you anything."
},
{
"docid": "194382",
"title": "",
"text": "Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance."
},
{
"docid": "103093",
"title": "",
"text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase."
},
{
"docid": "352363",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is."
},
{
"docid": "98294",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:"
},
{
"docid": "590623",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here."
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "534493",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You owe only $38,860 to pay off your loan now, possibly less. From what you say about your loan, tell me if I got this right: 30 year loan $75,780 original loan amount 9% annual interest rate $609.74 monthly payment You have made 272 payments Payment number 273 is not due until late 2019, possibly early 2020 If I have correctly figured out what you have done, you have been making monthly payments early by pulling out payment coupons before they are due and sending them in with payment. You are about 4 years ahead on your payments. If I have this correct, if you called the bank and asked \"\"what is my payoff amount if I want to pay this loan off tomorrow\"\" they would answer something like $38,860. When you pay a loan off early, you don't just owe the sum of the coupons still remaining. In your case, you owe at least $16,000 less! Indeed, if there is some way to convert your 4 years of pre-payments into an early payment, you would owe even less than $38,860. I don't know banking law well enough to know if that is possible. You should stop pulling coupons out of your book and paying them early. Any payments you make between now and when your next payment is actually due (late 2019 sometime?) you should tell the bank you want applied as an early payment. This will bring your total owed amount down much faster than pulling coupons out of your book and making payments years early. If there is someone in your family who understands banking pretty well, maybe they can help you sort this out. I don't know who to refer you to for more personal help, but I really do think you have more than $16,000 to gain by changing how you are paying your mortgage. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "343208",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\""
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "257248",
"title": "",
"text": "If you pay extra now you will pay less in interest over the life of the loan. Unless your savings account has a higher interest rate than the loan's rate you are not saving anything. That being said, you may have a greater need for savings due to other things (e.g. you might need a emergency fund). But if you are only saving for the loan: compare the rates to see if it is worth it."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "399259",
"title": "",
"text": "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans. Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it. Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later. It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans. You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan. How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment."
},
{
"docid": "107898",
"title": "",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\""
},
{
"docid": "103093",
"title": "",
"text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase."
},
{
"docid": "187526",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, excellent choice to say no to non-subsidized loans! But I'd say you are cutting things very close either way, and you need to face up to that now. $35/mo extra at the end of the month is \"\"within the noise\"\" of financial life, meaning you should think of it as essentially $0 each month or even negative money, since one vet bill/school books/unforeseen problem could remove it for the entire year, easily. You are leaving yourself no buffer. But by taking the loan, unless you are (as Joe said) socking away savings to pay for it upon graduation, you are guaranteeing you'll leave college with debt, which I think should be avoided if you can. Could you do a hybrid plan in which you worked hard to do the following?: If you do these things or something along these lines, the loan is probably OK; if not, I'd be concerned about taking it. [Probably unnecessary, but: Keep in mind that student loans are not excusable by bankruptcy, so one is on the hook for them no matter what]. Also consider whether you can take a semester off now and then to catch up financially. The key is to really stay far from the edge of any financial cliffs.\""
},
{
"docid": "352363",
"title": "",
"text": "Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is."
},
{
"docid": "221364",
"title": "",
"text": "Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month."
},
{
"docid": "489101",
"title": "",
"text": "An option that no one has yet suggested is selling the car, paying off the loan in one lump sum (adding cash from your emergency sum, if need be), and buying an old beater in its place. With the beater you should be able to get a few years out of it - hopefully enough to get you through your PhD and into a better income situation where you can then assess a new car purchase (or more gently-used car purchase, to avoid the drive-it-off-the-lot income loss). Even better than buying another car that you can afford to pay for is if you can survive without that car, depending on your location and public transit options. Living car free saves you not only this payment but gas and maintenance, though it costs you in public transit terms. Right now it looks as if this debt is hurting you more than the amount in your emergency fund is helping. Don't wipe out your emergency fund completely, but be willing to lower it in order to wipe out this debt."
},
{
"docid": "451457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\""
},
{
"docid": "590623",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here."
},
{
"docid": "188713",
"title": "",
"text": "Carmax will be interested in setting a price that allows them to make money on the reselling of the vehicle. They won't offer you more than that. The determination of the value compared to the BlueBook value is based on condition and miles. The refinancing of the auto loan could lower your monthly payment, but may not save you any money in the short term. The new lender will also want an evaluation of the vehicle, and if it is less than the payoff amount of the current loan they will ask you to make a lump sum payment. This is addition to the cost of getting the new loan setup. If you can pay the delta between the value of the car and loan then do so, when you sell the car. Don't refinance unless you plan on keeping the car for many months, or you are just adding paperwork to the transaction."
},
{
"docid": "116700",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down? Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for \"\"amortization schedule\"\". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so. The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation. The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same. That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit.\""
},
{
"docid": "555947",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\""
},
{
"docid": "541856",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? I don't see anything you should be deathly concerned about unless your career outlook is very poor and you are making minimum wage. If that is the case you may struggle for the next 10 years. Are these rates considered super high or manageable? The rates for the federal loans are around twice as high as your private loans but that is the going rate and there is nothing you can do about it now. 6.5% isn't bad on what is essentially a personal loan. 2-3% are very manageable assuming you pay them and don't let the interest build up. What is a good mode of attack here? I am by no means a financial adviser and don't know the rest of your financial situation, but the most general advice I can give you is pay down your highest interest rate loans first and always try to pay more than the minimum. In your case, I would put as much as you reasonably can towards the federal loans because that will save you money in the long run. What are the main takeaways I should understand about these loans? The main takeaway is that these are student loans and they cannot be discharged if you were to ever declare bankruptcy. Pay them off but don't be too concerned about them. If you do apply for loans in the future, most lenders won't be too concerned about student loans assuming you are paying them on time and especially if you are paying more than the minimum payment. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? The payoff dates for the other loans are a little hard to easily calculate, but it appears they all have different payoff dates between 8 and 12 years from now. This part might be easier for someone who is better at financial calculations than me. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Your citi loans have a higher balance probably because you have not payed anything towards them yet so the interest has been accruing since you got them."
},
{
"docid": "260959",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your \"\"salary\"\" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the \"\"very bad\"\", or \"\"kinda annoying\"\" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the \"\"very bad\"\" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the \"\"kinda annoying\"\" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at \"\"$95k\"\", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875) To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure.\""
},
{
"docid": "360628",
"title": "",
"text": "Determining how much you should budget to spend on any area of your budget is one of those hard topics to find good information about. Part of the problem is that everyone has different priorities and needs, and incomes and expenses vary greatly depending upon where you live and your career choices. The best thing you can do is track your spending for 1-3 months (you can use the envelope system if you need to, to track and control how much you spend on miscellaneous things like lunches, coffee, etc). The precision is important, though you probably dont need to measure to the penny, however you should capture all the areas where you spend money (even if you later gather them into more broad areas). Split your spending into three broad areas, and try to limit the spending for each of those areas to the stated percentages (adjust for your preferences). You state net Income $2600, and you stated you have $1731 of known expenses, so you are spending another $870 on groceries, debt payments, restaurants, unplanned expenses, and emergencies. Essentials (50%,$1300) - rent, transportation, food, utilites Total $972+groceries (you probably spend $400-600 on groceries, so your essentials are higher by $100-300 than you can afford. You should try to cut your electricity usage ($30-50), and you may be able to find cheaper car insurance (save $20). Financial Priorities (30%,$780) - savings, debt payments Total $376, nearly 15% before you pay for credit cards and savings. Please focus on paying off your debts (credit cards, window loan, student loans). You are spending almost 10% of your income on student loans, and you cannot afford much other debt. Lifestyle (20%,$520) Total $279, over 10% of your income on communications! Please try to cut cellphone, and DirectTV costs, at least until you have reduced debt. Since you have internet, your wife could use a voip provider (vonage, ooma telo, etc) or get an ipod touch and use skype or similar, at least until you get out of debt. You might consider trying to find a way to earn extra money, until you have paid off either the loan for windows, your credit card debt, or one of your student loans."
},
{
"docid": "589582",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest."
},
{
"docid": "121505",
"title": "",
"text": "First, check with your lender to see if the terms of the loan allow early payoff. If you are able to payoff early without penalty, with the numbers you are posting, I would hesitate to refinance. This is simply because if you actually do pay 5k/month on this loan you will have it paid off so quickly that refinancing will probably not save you much money. Back-of-the-napkin math at 5k/month has you paying 60k pounds a year, which will payoff in about 5 years. Even if you can afford 5k/month, I would recommend not paying extra on this debt ahead of other high-interest debt or saving in a tax-advantaged retirement account. If these other things are being taken care of, and you have liquid assets (cash) for emergencies, I would recommend paying off the mortgage without refinancing."
},
{
"docid": "541313",
"title": "",
"text": "Since you are considering dumping your savings into your student loans when they are equal, you should go ahead and do it now. You will immediately reap the benefit of paying less interest per month. Also, your minimum monthly payments will decrease so if you had unexpected expenses pop up, you could shrink your payments for a limited time. If you don't have emergency expenses, more of your regular monthly payment will go toward the principle of your loan and pay it off faster. Make a goal to get your savings back up as soon as you can after your loans are paid off. In the mean time, see what other things you can cut back on like eating less expensive food or switching to a less expensive phone plan. If you have stuff you don't need anymore, try selling it on Craiglist or eBay. Or just focus on doing more at work so you can get a raise. These things are not necessary, but it's a good feeling to be able to shave another month or two off paying a debt."
},
{
"docid": "343208",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\""
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "519675",
"title": "",
"text": "There are a few ways you can go about paying this off quickly (and safely): You could start paying $386 monthly (ie, double what you're paying now). You'll pay less interest in the long run because they can only charge you for the amount outstanding. Remember, 6.8% of $12k is more than 6.8% of $6k. However, your plan sounds more sensible. Say you get to $6k paid off and $6k saved, you're able to pay off what's left and that's almost $200 a month you'll have extra. Although what I like about this is - if you become ill, lose your job, or whatever, then you're still able make the $193 payments, PLUS you'll have money saved for day-to-day expenses (food, water, gas, electricity, etc.) long enough to see yourself through. PS. They may charge you a settlement fee because if you pay early then they miss out on money... but check your contract with them first. Hope this helps!"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "81206",
"title": "",
"text": "When paying off multiple debts there is a protocol that many support. Payoff your debts according to the snowball method. The snowball method proposes that you make minimum payments on all debts except the smallest one. Payoff the smallest debt as quickly as possible. As smaller debts are paid off, that makes one less minimum payment you need to make, leaving you with more money to put against the next smallest debt. So in your case, pay off the smaller debt completely, then follow up on the larger one by making regular payments at least equal to the sum of your two current minimum payments. You'll see immediate progress in tackling your debt and have one less minimum to worry about, which can serve as a little safety of it's own if you have a bad month. As to saving the thousand dollars, that is pragmatic and prudent. It's not financially useful (you won't make any money in a savings account), but having cash on hand for emergencies and various other reasons is an important security for modern living. As suggested in another answer, you can forgo saving this thousand and put it against debt now, because you will have a freed up credit card. Credit can certainly give you that same security. This is an alternative option, but not all emergencies will take a credit card. You typically can't make rent with your credit card, for example. Good luck paying your debts and I hope you can soon enjoy the freedom of a debt free life."
},
{
"docid": "150607",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty. Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors. As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you \"\"can\"\" pay off the loan in a short time. If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above.\""
},
{
"docid": "242008",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First off, your commitment to paying down debt and apparent strong relationship with your brother is admirable. However, I think you are overcomplicating your situation and potentially endangering your relationship by attempting to combine debts in this way. You could consider a simple example where you have interest bearing at 5% and your brother has interest bearing debt at 10%. If you both pay down his higher interest debt first, and then both pay down your debt after, then clearly you will have paid less interest combined. But, by waiting to pay off your debt until later, you have accrued more interest yourself. So who has saved money by doing this? Your brother. You will have paid (let's say, without getting into balances) $50 extra interest to save your brother $70 in interest. So why would you want to give your brother $50? Total interest savings between both of you in this simplified example are $20. So, in theory your brother could pay you $60 after the fact, effectively meaning you end up $10 ahead, and your brother ends up $10 ahead. Here, you end up in a position where you could still say, in theory 'we both came out ahead'. But what if your brother loses his job while you're both paying off your debt, and he can't help any more? Does he accrue some type of calculated interest until he pays you back? What if he's off work for 2 years and still owes you 30k? What if he just never makes his payments to you on time? At what point do you resent your brother for failing to uphold his end of the deal? Money and friends don't mix. Money and family mixes even worse. In rare circumstances where you absolutely must mix family and money, get everything in writing. Get it signed, make it legal. Outline all details of the transaction, including interest rates, and examples of how the balances calculate. In 5 years when things go haywire, following the letter of the law is what will keep you from becoming enemies. But with family, often people have an expectation that \"\"while we agreed I would pay x, he's my brother, so he should take pity on me and allow me to pay only y, if I need to\"\". Finally, to your question about how to calculate amounts to pay: it will be very complicated. You will need to track minimum balance payments, interest rates, and even potentially the lost income which one of you gives up to pay down the other's debt. You could do these things in a simplified way close to what I've set out above, but then ultimately one of you will lose out. If you pay down your debts first, how can you calculate the lost living potential for your brother, who might want to buy a house but can't save for a down payment for an extra year? What if he has to move, and without sufficient down payment, he needs to pay extra Mortgage Insurance on his loan from the bank? Will you compensate him for that? My recommendation, if you haven't caught it yet, is Do not do this. Your potential savings are not going to be worth the potential heartache of breaking your relationship with your brother. Instead, look at joining your minds, not your money. Set goals for yourselves individually, and hold each other accountable. Make this an open conversation between yourselves, as it can be difficult to talk about finances with other people. Your support will help the other person, and hopefully help keep you on track as well. To provide numerical context for potential savings, which you appear to still want, consider the numbers you've provided [you have 40k debt at 10%, your brother has 20k of debt at 5%]. Let's assume you each can pay up to 20k against the principal of your loans each year. Finally assume for simplicity that you also have enough to pay off interest as it gets charged [so no compounding], and you pay in even instalments each year. Mathematically that means your interest each year is equal to your interest rate * your average annual balance. If you each go alone, then you will accrue 10% on an average balance of [(40k+20k)/2] = 30k per year, which equals 3,000 in interest in year 1, then [(20k+0)/2] = 10k * .10 = 1,000 interest in year 2. Total interest for you = 4,000. Your brother will accrue [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 = 500 in interest in total. Total interest for both of you combined would be 4,500. If you pool your debt snowball, then you will clear your debt first. So the interest on your debt would be [(40k+0k)/2] = 20k * .1 = 2,000. Your brother's debt would fully accrue 5% of interest on the full balance in year 1, so interest in year 1 would be 20k * .05 = 1,000. In year 2, your brother's debt would be cleared half way through the year; interest charged would be [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 * 50% = 250. You would then owe your brother 10k, which you would pay him over the remainder of year 2. His total interest paid to the bank would be 1,000 + 250 = 1,250. Total interest for both of you combined would be 3,250. In a simplified payment example using your numbers, maximum interest savings would be about $1,250 combined. How you allocate those savings would be pretty subjective; assuming a 50:50 split, this yields $625 in savings to each of you. If you aren't able to each save 20k per year, then savings would be greater for snowballing, because otherwise it will take you even longer to pay off your high interest debt. This is similar to your brother loaning you 20k today that you can use to pay off your debts, after which you pay him back so he can pay off his. Because you will owe him 20k for 2 years, but an average of ~10k at any one time [because he slowly advances it to you today, and you slowly pay him back until the end of year 2], at $650 in benefit passed to your brother, this is roughly equivalent to him loaning you money at 6.5% interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "40897",
"title": "",
"text": "The breakdown between how much of your payment is going toward principal and interest is very important. The principal balance remaining on your loan is the payoff amount. Once the principal is paid off, your loan is finished. Each month, some of your payment goes to pay off the principal, and some goes to pay interest (profit for the bank). Using your example image, let's say that you've just taken out a $300k mortgage at 5% interest for 30 years. You can click here to see the amortization schedule on that loan. The monthly payment is $1610.46. On your first payment, only $360 went to pay off your principal. The rest ($1250) went to interest. That money is lost. If you were to pay off your $300k mortgage after making one payment, it would cost you $299,640, even though you had just made a payment of $1250. Interest accrues on the principal balance, so as time goes on and more of the principal has been paid, the interest payment is less, meaning that more of your monthly payment can go toward the principal. 15 years into your 30-year mortgage, your monthly payment is paying $762 of your principal, and only $849 is going toward interest. Your principal balance at that time would be about $203k. Even though you are halfway done with your mortgage in terms of time, you've only paid off about a third of your house. Toward the end of your mortgage, when your principal balance is very low, almost all of your payment goes toward principal. In the last year, only $513 of your payments goes toward interest for the whole year. You can think of your monthly loan payment as a minimum payment. If you continue to make the regular monthly payments, your mortgage will be paid off in 30 years. However, if you pay more than that, your mortgage will be paid off much sooner. The extra that you pay above your regular monthly payment all goes toward principal. Even if you have no plans to pay your mortgage ahead of schedule, there are other situations where the principal balance matters. The principal balance of your mortgage affects the amount of equity that you have in your home, which is important if you sell the house. If you decide to refinance your mortgage, the principal balance is the amount that will need to be paid off by the new loan to close the old loan."
},
{
"docid": "407726",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a \"\"safe rate of withdrawal\"\"? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US, though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used. Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking. Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris mentioned. There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity. It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities.\""
},
{
"docid": "110081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\""
},
{
"docid": "445655",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off my student loans today or tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice to be completely debt free and not owe anyone anything? It doesn't matter what the interest rate of the loan is; there is no need to spend anymore time trying to worry about whether or not the market will allow you to make a tiny bit extra over what you are spending in interest on the loan. Just get rid of the debt, and you will get to keep every bit of the growth of your investments from here on out. After the student loans are paid off, that leaves you with $15k. I would take $10k and put it in a savings account for an emergency fund, and put $5k as a start toward your retirement savings in a Roth IRA. At this point, with a fully funded emergency fund, a start on your retirement savings, and no debts, you have really set yourself up for success. Learn how to budget your income so that you spend less than you make and can save up toward goals like a car (paid for in cash) and a down payment on a house."
},
{
"docid": "172084",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Should I allow the credit cards to be paid out of escrow in one lump sum? Or should I take the cash and pay the cards down over a few months. I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? Will the money you save by increasing your credit score (assuming this statement is true) be larger than by eliminating the interest payments for the credit card payments over \"\"a few months\"\" (13% APR at $24,000 is $3120 a year in interest; $260 a month, so if \"\"a few months\"\" is three, that would cost over $700 - note that as you pay more principal the overall amount of interest decreases, so the \"\"a year\"\" in interest could go down depending on the principal payments). Also, on a related note regarding credit score, it doesn't look good to have more than a third of a credit line available balance exceeded (see number 2 here: http://credit.about.com/od/buildingcredit/tp/building-good-credit.htm).\""
},
{
"docid": "372921",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the \"\"what-ifs\"\". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the \"\"pay-off-early\"\" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%.\""
},
{
"docid": "121505",
"title": "",
"text": "First, check with your lender to see if the terms of the loan allow early payoff. If you are able to payoff early without penalty, with the numbers you are posting, I would hesitate to refinance. This is simply because if you actually do pay 5k/month on this loan you will have it paid off so quickly that refinancing will probably not save you much money. Back-of-the-napkin math at 5k/month has you paying 60k pounds a year, which will payoff in about 5 years. Even if you can afford 5k/month, I would recommend not paying extra on this debt ahead of other high-interest debt or saving in a tax-advantaged retirement account. If these other things are being taken care of, and you have liquid assets (cash) for emergencies, I would recommend paying off the mortgage without refinancing."
},
{
"docid": "63690",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings. Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend."
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "349544",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Make a list of all your expenses. I use an Excel spreadsheet but you can do it on the back of a napkin if you prefer. List fixed expenses, like rent, loan payments, insurance, etc. I include giving to church and charity as fixed expenses, but of course that's up to you. List regular but not fixed expenses, like food, heat and electricity, gas, etc. Come up with reasonable average or typical values for these. Keep records for at least a few months so you're not just guessing. (Though remember that some will vary with the season: presumably you spend a lot more on heat in the winter than in the summer, etc.) You should budget to put something into savings and retirement. If you're young and just starting out, it's easy to decide to postpone retirement savings. But the sooner you start, the more the money will add up. Even if you can't put away a lot, try to put away SOMETHING. And if you budget for it, you should just get used to not having this money to play with. Then total all this up and compare to your income. If the total is more than your income, you have a problem! You need to find a way to cut some expenses. I won't go any further with that thought -- that's another subject. Hopefully you have some money left over after paying all the regular expenses. That's what you have to play with for entertainment and other non-essentials. Make a schedule for paying your bills. I get paid twice a month, and so I pay most of my bills when I get a paycheck. I have some bills that I allocate to the first check of the month and some to the second, for others, whatever bills came in since my last check, I pay with the current check. I have it arranged so each check is big enough to pay all the bills that come from that check. If you can't do that, if you'll have a surplus from one check and a shortage from the next, then be sure to put money aside from the surplus check to cover the bills you'll pay at the next pay period. Always pay your bills before you spend money on entertainment. Always have a plan to pay your bills. Don't say, \"\"oh, I'll come up with the money somehow\"\". If you have debt -- student loans, car loans, etc -- have a plan to pay it off. One of the most common traps people fall into is saying, \"\"I really need to get out of debt. And I'm going to start paying off my debt. Next month, because this month I really want to buy this way cool toy.\"\" They put off getting out of debt until they have frittered away huge amounts of money on interest. Or worse, they keep accumulating new debt until they can't even pay the interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "592192",
"title": "",
"text": "My advice is that if you've got the money now to pay off your student loans, do so. You've saved up all of that money in one year's time. If you pay it off now, you'll eliminate all of those monthly payments, you'll be done paying interest, and you should be able to save even more toward your business over the next year. Over the next year, you can get started on your business part time, while still working full time to pile up cash toward your business. Neither you nor your business will be paying interest on anything, and you'll start out in a very strong position. The interest on your student loans might be tax deductible, depending on your situation. However, this doesn't really matter a whole lot, in my opinion. You've got about $22k in debt, and the interest will cost you roughly $1k over the next year. Why pay $1k to the bank to gain maybe $250 in tax savings? Starting a business is stressful. There will be good times and bad. How long will it take you to pay off your debt at $250 a month? 5 or 6 years, probably. By eliminating the debt now, you'll be able to save up capital for your business even faster. And when you experience some slow times in your business, your monthly expenses will be less."
},
{
"docid": "413313",
"title": "",
"text": "I would add this as comment if I could. Basically a lot of people say you can't beat the interest rate when you invest vs paying off a loan which is typically correct, however you really need to learn how to save money. It's quite easy getting into debt and paying it off but what tends to happen with a lot of people is they continue that cycle when they see how easy it is and never have a decent amount of savings. I would make the minimum payments or slightly more and then save as much as possible, learn to sacrifice on luxuries which are extremely tempting when you are just starting out to earn good money. I'm not sure about your cost of living but set up a direct debit to take 10% of your salary after tax every month a couple days after you get paid. Having a large lump sum will do wonders for your credit and will enforce good habits"
},
{
"docid": "277664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\""
},
{
"docid": "592979",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think there are two questions here: (a) Is it better to continue living with your parents while you save up for a bigger down payment on a house, or to move out as soon as possible? (b) Is it better to pay off a student loan and make a smaller down payment on the house, or to keep paying on the student loan and use the cash for a larger down payment on the house? Regarding (a), this is mostly a personal priorities question. You don't say if you're paying your parents anything, but even if you are, it's likely a lot less than the cost of your buying your own home. It is almost certainly ECONOMICALLY better to stay with your parents. But do you like living with your parents, and do they like having you around? Or are they pushing you to move out? Are you fighting with them regularly? Do you just like the idea of being more independent? If you'd prefer to have your own place, how important is it to you? Is it worth the additional cost? These are questions only you can answer. Regarding (b), you need to compare the cost of the student loan and the mortgage loan. Start with the interest rates of each. For the mortgage loan, if your down payment is below a certain threshold -- 20% last time I bought a house -- you have to pay for the lender's mortgage insurance, so add that in if applicable. If you are paying \"\"points\"\" to get a reduced interest rate, factor that in too. Then whichever is more expensive, that's the one that you want to make smaller. If one or both are variable rate loans (well, you say the student loan is fixed), than you have to guess what the rates might be in the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "194382",
"title": "",
"text": "Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance."
},
{
"docid": "503723",
"title": "",
"text": "When you pay off a loan early, you pay the remaining principal, and you save all of the remaining interest. So you do save on interest, but it's the interest you would have paid in the future, not the interest you have paid in the past. (Your remaining balance when you pay off the loan only includes the principal, not the projected interest.) Interest is a factor of the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the amount of time you borrow the money. The sooner you repay the money, the less interest you pay. Imagine if you had taken a 30 year loan at 4% interest but were allowed to make no payments until the loan term ended. If you waited 15 years to make your first payment, you wouldn't owe the same money as if you'd made payments every month. No, instead of owing ~$64k, you'd owe ~$182k, because you had borrowed $100k for 15 years (plus the interest due) rather than borrowing a declining sum. So that's why you don't get a refund on interest for previous months. If you had started with a 16 year loan, then you would have been paying more principal every month, and your monthly amount due would have been higher to reflect that. As you paid the principal off faster, the interest each month would drop faster. Paying a huge portion of the principal at the end of the loan is not the same as steadily paying it down in the same time frame. You will pay a lot more interest in the former case, and rightfully so. It might help to consider a credit card payment in comparison. If you run up a balance and pay only the minimum each month, you pay a lot of interest over time, because your principal goes down slowly. If you suddenly pay off your credit card, you don't have to pay any more interest, but you also don't get any interest back for previous months. That's because the interest accrued each month is based on your current balance, just like your mortgage. The minimum payments are calculated differently, but the interest accrued each month uses essentially the same mechanism."
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "76414",
"title": "",
"text": "As someone in the very same position as you here is what I suggest: Have $1,000 for each possible large expense you currently have. For example, house, car, pregnant wife, etc. As someone who only has a car (living at home still) I only have $1,000 in my eFund (emergency fund). The ABSOLUTE rest of my money goes to paying off the loans as soon as possible. I mean ever single dollar. There is no point for investing unless you have a really good return on investment. I am not too sure how common returns of 6.8% are, but that seems above average. If in fact you're just stashing it in a bank account at ~1%, you're doing it wrong. Getting out of debt is not only just about the financial benefits but the emotional benefits too. It feels really nice to not owe anybody anything. Good luck man! P.S. Try using a tracker like ReadytoZero to show how much you're losing a day by remaining in debt. This will better help you understand if your investments are making you money or losing your money."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "98294",
"title": "",
"text": "Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments... EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest) for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:"
},
{
"docid": "380382",
"title": "",
"text": "An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month."
},
{
"docid": "451457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\""
},
{
"docid": "429746",
"title": "",
"text": "Typically your statement will break down each of the balances that carry a different rate, so you'll see them lumped into the 0% line, or two separates lines with different rates for each. If you don't see it on the statement, a quick call to your bank should clarify it for you. If I had to guess, I would lean towards the fee likely being at 0% also, but if it isn't, typically you would pay the minimum + $350 on your next statement. (Because only amounts over the minimum go towards principal of the highest rates first, at least this is true in the US for personal accounts.) Of course this is something your bank should be able to clarify as well. Balance Transfer Tip: I always recommend setting up automatic payments when you take advantage of a balance transfer offer. The reason is, oftentimes buried deeply in the terms and conditions, is an evil phrase which says that if you miss a payment, they have the right to revoke the promotional rate and start charging you a higher rate. That would be bad enough if it happened, but to make things worse I believe the fee you paid for the transfer is not returned to you. So, set up an auto payment each month for at least the minimum payment. And if you can afford it, divide the total transferred by the number of months and pay that amount each month. (Assuming you don't pay interest on the fee: $17,500 * 1.02 / 18 = $991.67/per month.) That way you'll have it paid off just in time to not have any higher interest when the promotional rate expires. If you don't know if you can afford the higher amount each month, set it to the max you know for sure you can afford, and make additional payments whenever you can."
},
{
"docid": "589582",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest."
},
{
"docid": "529312",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "560928",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? A concern I see is the variable rate loans. Do you understand the maximum rate they can get to? At this time those rates are low, but if you are going to put funds against the highest rate loan, make sure the order doesn't change without you noticing it. What is a good mode of attack here? The best mode of attack is to pay off the one with the highest rate first by paying more than the minimum. When that is done roll over the money you were paying for that loan to the next highest. Note if a loan balance get to be very low, you can put extra funds against this low balance loan to be done with it. Investigate loan forgiveness programs. The federal government has loan forgiveness programs for certain job positions, if you work for them for a number of years. Some employers also have these programs. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? My inexact calculations put a bunch in about 2020 but some as late as 2030. You may need to talk to your lender. They might have a calculator on their website. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Some loans are subsidized by the federal government. This covers the interest while the student is still in school. Non-subsidized federal loans and private loans don't have this feature, so their balance can grow while the student is in school."
},
{
"docid": "7311",
"title": "",
"text": "Which way would save the most money? Paying of the car today would save the most money. Would you borrow money at 20% to put it in a savings account? That's effectively what she is doing by not paying off the car. If it were me, I would pay off the car today, and add the car payment to my savings account each month. If the car payment is $400, that's $1,500 a month that can be saved, and the $12k will be back in 8 months. That said - remember that this is your GIRLFRIEND, not a spouse. You are not in control (or responsible for) her finances. I would not tell her that she SHOULD do this - only explain it to her in different ways, and offer advice as to what YOU would do. Look together at how much has been paid in principal and interest so far, how much she's paying in interest each month now, and how much she'll pay for the car over the life of the loan. (I would also encourage her not to buy cars with a 72-month loan, which I'm guessing is how she got here). In the end, though, it's her decision."
},
{
"docid": "94373",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is true that all else being equal, you will pay a lower amount of total interest by paying down your highest interest rate debts first. However, all else is not always equal. I'm going to try to come up with some reasons why it might be better in some circumstances to pay your debts in a different order. And I'll try to use as much math as possible. :) Let's say that your goal is to eliminate all of your debt as fast as possible. The faster you do this, the lower the total interest that you will pay. Now, let's consider the different methods that you could take to get there: You could pay the highest interest first, you could pay the lowest interest first, or you could pay something in the middle first. No matter which path you choose, the quicker you pay everything off, the lower total interest you will pay. In addition to that, the quicker you pay everything off, the difference in total interest paid between the most optimal method and the least optimal method will be less. To put this in mathematical notation: limt→0 Δ Interest(t) = 0 Given that, anything we can do to speed up the time it takes to get to \"\"debt free\"\" is to our advantage. When paying large amounts of debt as fast as possible, sacrifice is needed. And this means that psychology comes into play. I don't know about you, but for me, gamifying the system makes everything easier. (After all, gamification is what gets us to write answers here on SE.) One way to do this is to eliminate individual debts as quickly as possible. For example, let's say that I've got 10 debts. 5 of them are for $1k each. 3 of them are for $5k each, 1 is a $20k car loan, and 1 is a $100k mortgage. Each one has a monthly payment. Let's say that I've got $3k sitting in the bank that I want to use to kickstart my debt reduction. I could pay all $3k toward one of my larger loans, or I could immediately pay off 3 of my 10 loans. Ignore interest for the moment, and let's say that we are going to pay off the smallest loans first. When I eliminate these three loans, three of my monthly payments are also gone. Now let's say that with the money I was paying toward these eliminated debts, and some other money I was able to scrape together $500 a month that I want to use toward debt reduction. In four months, I've eliminated the last two $1k debts, and I'm down to 5 debts instead of 10. Achievement Unlocked! Instead of this strategy, I could have paid toward my largest interest rate. Let's say that was one of the $5k loans. I paid the $3k toward the bank to it, and because I still had all the monthly payments after that, I was only able to scrape together $400 a month extra toward debt reduction. In four months, I still have 10 debts. Now let's say that after these four months, I have a bad month, and some unexpected expenses come up. If I've eliminated 5 of my debts, my monthly payments are less, and I'll have an easier month then I would have had if I still had 10 monthly payments to deal with. Each time I eliminate a debt, the amount extra I have each month to tackle the remaining debts gets bigger. And if your goal is eliminating debt quickly, these early wins can really help motivate you on. It really feels like you are getting somewhere when your monthly bills go down. It also helps you with the debt free mindset. You start to see a future where you aren't sending payments to the banks each month. This method of paying your smaller debts first has been popularized in recent years by Dave Ramsey, and he calls it the debt snowball method. There might be other reasons why you would pick one debt over another to pay first. For example, let's say that one of your loans is with a bank that has terrible customer service. They don't send you bills on time, they process your payment late, their website stinks, they are a constant source of stress, and you are getting sick of them. That would be a great reason to pay that debt first, and never set foot in that bank again. In conclusion: If you have a constant amount of extra cash each month that you are going to use to reduce your debt, and this will never change, then, yes, you will save money over the long run by paying the highest interest debt first. However, if you are trying to eliminate your debt as fast as possible, and you are sacrificing in your budget, sending every extra penny you can scrape together toward debt reduction, the \"\"snowball\"\" method of knocking out the small debts first can help motivate you to continue to sacrifice toward your goal, and can also ease the cash flow situation in difficult months when you find yourself with less extra to send in.\""
},
{
"docid": "445655",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off my student loans today or tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice to be completely debt free and not owe anyone anything? It doesn't matter what the interest rate of the loan is; there is no need to spend anymore time trying to worry about whether or not the market will allow you to make a tiny bit extra over what you are spending in interest on the loan. Just get rid of the debt, and you will get to keep every bit of the growth of your investments from here on out. After the student loans are paid off, that leaves you with $15k. I would take $10k and put it in a savings account for an emergency fund, and put $5k as a start toward your retirement savings in a Roth IRA. At this point, with a fully funded emergency fund, a start on your retirement savings, and no debts, you have really set yourself up for success. Learn how to budget your income so that you spend less than you make and can save up toward goals like a car (paid for in cash) and a down payment on a house."
},
{
"docid": "121505",
"title": "",
"text": "First, check with your lender to see if the terms of the loan allow early payoff. If you are able to payoff early without penalty, with the numbers you are posting, I would hesitate to refinance. This is simply because if you actually do pay 5k/month on this loan you will have it paid off so quickly that refinancing will probably not save you much money. Back-of-the-napkin math at 5k/month has you paying 60k pounds a year, which will payoff in about 5 years. Even if you can afford 5k/month, I would recommend not paying extra on this debt ahead of other high-interest debt or saving in a tax-advantaged retirement account. If these other things are being taken care of, and you have liquid assets (cash) for emergencies, I would recommend paying off the mortgage without refinancing."
},
{
"docid": "437879",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\""
},
{
"docid": "489561",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else."
},
{
"docid": "555947",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\""
},
{
"docid": "349544",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Make a list of all your expenses. I use an Excel spreadsheet but you can do it on the back of a napkin if you prefer. List fixed expenses, like rent, loan payments, insurance, etc. I include giving to church and charity as fixed expenses, but of course that's up to you. List regular but not fixed expenses, like food, heat and electricity, gas, etc. Come up with reasonable average or typical values for these. Keep records for at least a few months so you're not just guessing. (Though remember that some will vary with the season: presumably you spend a lot more on heat in the winter than in the summer, etc.) You should budget to put something into savings and retirement. If you're young and just starting out, it's easy to decide to postpone retirement savings. But the sooner you start, the more the money will add up. Even if you can't put away a lot, try to put away SOMETHING. And if you budget for it, you should just get used to not having this money to play with. Then total all this up and compare to your income. If the total is more than your income, you have a problem! You need to find a way to cut some expenses. I won't go any further with that thought -- that's another subject. Hopefully you have some money left over after paying all the regular expenses. That's what you have to play with for entertainment and other non-essentials. Make a schedule for paying your bills. I get paid twice a month, and so I pay most of my bills when I get a paycheck. I have some bills that I allocate to the first check of the month and some to the second, for others, whatever bills came in since my last check, I pay with the current check. I have it arranged so each check is big enough to pay all the bills that come from that check. If you can't do that, if you'll have a surplus from one check and a shortage from the next, then be sure to put money aside from the surplus check to cover the bills you'll pay at the next pay period. Always pay your bills before you spend money on entertainment. Always have a plan to pay your bills. Don't say, \"\"oh, I'll come up with the money somehow\"\". If you have debt -- student loans, car loans, etc -- have a plan to pay it off. One of the most common traps people fall into is saying, \"\"I really need to get out of debt. And I'm going to start paying off my debt. Next month, because this month I really want to buy this way cool toy.\"\" They put off getting out of debt until they have frittered away huge amounts of money on interest. Or worse, they keep accumulating new debt until they can't even pay the interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "221364",
"title": "",
"text": "Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month."
},
{
"docid": "150607",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty. Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors. As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you \"\"can\"\" pay off the loan in a short time. If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above.\""
},
{
"docid": "550420",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As I understand it, if the \"\"borrower\"\" puts a down payment of 20% and the bank puts down 80%, then the bank and the \"\"borrower\"\" own the home jointly as tenants in common with a 20%-80% split of the asset amongst them. The \"\"borrower\"\" moves into the home and pays the bank 80% of the fair rental value of the home each month. {Material added/changed in edit: For the purposes of illustration, suppose that the \"\"borrower\"\" and the bank agree that the fair rental per month is 0.5% of the purchase cost. The \"\"borrower\"\" pays 80% of that amount i.e. 0.4% of the purchase cost to the bank on a monthly basis. The \"\"borrower\"\" is not required to do so but may choose to pay more money than this 0.4% of the purchase cost each month, or pay some amount in a lump sum. If he does so, he will own a larger percentage of the house, and so future monthly payments will be a smaller fraction of the agreed-upon fair rental per month. So there is an incentive to pay off the bank.} If and when the house is sold, the sale price is divided between \"\"borrower\"\" and bank according to the percentage of ownership as of the date of sale. So the bank gets to share in the profits, if any. On the other hand, if the house is sold for less than the original purchase price, then the bank also suffers in the loss. It is not a case of a mortgage being paid off from the proceeds and the home-owner gets whatever is left, or even suffering a loss when the dust has settled; the bank gets only its percentage of the sale price even if this amount is less than what it put up in the first place minus any additional payments made by the \"\"borrower\"\". I have no idea how other costs of home ownership (property taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance) or improvements, additions, etc are handled. Ditto what happens on Schedule A if such a \"\"loan\"\" is made to a US taxpayer.\""
},
{
"docid": "272223",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\""
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "169688",
"title": "",
"text": "The interest accrues daily based on the amount you owe. The less you owe the less the daily interest accrual. The faster you pay it off the less you pay in the lifetime of the loan. You are losing money if you bank money rather than applying it to the loan immediately. Since student loans cannot be declared in bankruptcy and interest rates cannot be refinanced, or are nonnegotiable, then you should consider your student loan a priority in case your employment/income runs into problems."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "110081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\""
},
{
"docid": "560928",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? A concern I see is the variable rate loans. Do you understand the maximum rate they can get to? At this time those rates are low, but if you are going to put funds against the highest rate loan, make sure the order doesn't change without you noticing it. What is a good mode of attack here? The best mode of attack is to pay off the one with the highest rate first by paying more than the minimum. When that is done roll over the money you were paying for that loan to the next highest. Note if a loan balance get to be very low, you can put extra funds against this low balance loan to be done with it. Investigate loan forgiveness programs. The federal government has loan forgiveness programs for certain job positions, if you work for them for a number of years. Some employers also have these programs. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? My inexact calculations put a bunch in about 2020 but some as late as 2030. You may need to talk to your lender. They might have a calculator on their website. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Some loans are subsidized by the federal government. This covers the interest while the student is still in school. Non-subsidized federal loans and private loans don't have this feature, so their balance can grow while the student is in school."
},
{
"docid": "576694",
"title": "",
"text": "Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee..."
},
{
"docid": "413955",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @michael's solid answer, I would suggest sitting down and analyzing what your priorities are about paying off the student loan debt versus investing that money immediately. (Regardless, the first thing you should do is, as michael suggested, pay off the credit card debt) Since it looks like you will be having some new expenses coming up soon (rent, possibly a new car), as part of that prioritization you should calculate what your rent (and associated bills) will cost you on a monthly basis (including saving a bit each month!) and see if you can afford to pay everything without incurring new debt. I'd recommend trying to come up with several scenarios to see how cheaply you can live (roommates, maybe you can figure out a way to go without a car, etc). If, for whatever reason, you find you can't afford everything, then I would suggest taking a portion of your inheritance to at least pay off enough of your student loans so that you can afford all of your costs per month, and then save or invest the rest. (You can invest all you like, but if you don't live within your means, it won't do you any good.) Finally -- be aware that you may have other factors that come into play that may override financial considerations. I found myself in a situation similar to yours, and in my case, I chose to pay off my debts, not because it necessarily made the best financial sense, but that because of those other considerations, paying off that debt meant I had a significant level of stress removed from my life, and a lot more peace of mind."
},
{
"docid": "92894",
"title": "",
"text": "Well to start with I would make sure that the interest total you are collecting each month is greater than the interest total you are paying each month on your credit card debt. So if you have $200 a month in interest you pay the credit card company I would make sure that the interest you collect on the loan is more than $200 a month. And make sure that you use some portion of the principle payment to pay down the credit card debt so that you are still even or ahead of the interest you owe the credit card company. Beyond that I would want the rate to be higher than the borrower could expect from a bank. This will incentivize the borrower to either pay it off early or refinance the loan through a bank effectively paying it off early for you. Anything that shifts the risk off of you and onto someone else is in your favor here. You could also implement some sort of final payment fee and reduce this fee by a certain amount (presumably up to 100%) if it is paid off early. I would graduate that amount so there is still incentive if the buyer misses the original date but still incentive to meet the date. If the loan was for 10 years then I would probably do around .5% per year early. I would also get an attorney to draw up the loan paperwork to make sure that you(and potentially your heirs) are covered should you need to recover from a default, bankruptcy, or other potential problems. I would bet the lawyer fees will save you 5x+ the amount if only in headaches. And if you are dealing with family the lawyer makes a great fall guy to say I wish I could do that but the lawyer won't let me if the family member tries to take advantage."
},
{
"docid": "69150",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While the question is highly subjective as you noted, putting extra money will of course save you interest payments, it depends on how much \"\"enjoyment\"\" is worth now. I would suggest you to not be overly aggressive as you might dig yourself a ditch, your minimum monthly payments might get adjust upwards if some of these loans are student loans as it might seem you have a higher degree of disposable income to play with. Be aggressive in paying them off but not to aggressive, I also think the interest is tax deductible. What it really comes down to is, how much more interest do you want to pay them for enjoyment now, 50 months is not long its just north of 4 years. I'd say if you think you can put 800 extra towards them, don't. Instead if it were me I would put an extra 400 towards the highest until its paid and then take the 400 plus the monthly minimum and add that to the next highest and keep the other 400 for a rainy day, you will still get paid off quick but will leave yourself some scratch if necessary.\""
},
{
"docid": "592192",
"title": "",
"text": "My advice is that if you've got the money now to pay off your student loans, do so. You've saved up all of that money in one year's time. If you pay it off now, you'll eliminate all of those monthly payments, you'll be done paying interest, and you should be able to save even more toward your business over the next year. Over the next year, you can get started on your business part time, while still working full time to pile up cash toward your business. Neither you nor your business will be paying interest on anything, and you'll start out in a very strong position. The interest on your student loans might be tax deductible, depending on your situation. However, this doesn't really matter a whole lot, in my opinion. You've got about $22k in debt, and the interest will cost you roughly $1k over the next year. Why pay $1k to the bank to gain maybe $250 in tax savings? Starting a business is stressful. There will be good times and bad. How long will it take you to pay off your debt at $250 a month? 5 or 6 years, probably. By eliminating the debt now, you'll be able to save up capital for your business even faster. And when you experience some slow times in your business, your monthly expenses will be less."
},
{
"docid": "366869",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan."
},
{
"docid": "589582",
"title": "",
"text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest."
},
{
"docid": "581697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First to actually answer the question \"\"how long at these rates/payments?\"\"- These is nothing magic or nefarious about what the bank is doing. They add accrued interest and take your payment off the new total. I'd make higher payments to the 8.75% debt until it's gone, $100/mo extra and be done. The first debt, if you bump it to $50 will be paid in 147 months, at $75/mo, 92 months. Everything you pay above the minimum goes right to the principal balance and gets you closer to paying it off. The debt snowball is not the ideal way to pay off your debt. Say I have one 24% credit card the bank was nice enough to give me a $20,000 line of credit on. I also have 20 cards each with $1000 in credit, all at 6%. The snowball dictates that the smallest debt be paid first, so while I pay the minimum on the 24% card, the 6% cards get paid off one by one, but I'm supposed to feel good about the process, as I reduce the number of cards every few months. The correct way to line up debt is to pay off the (tax adjusted) highest rate first, as an extra $100 to the 24% card saves you $2/mo vs 50 cents/mo for the 6% cards. I wrote an article discussing the Debt Snowball which links to a calculator where you can see the difference in methods. I note that if the difference from lowest to highest rate is small, the Snowball method will only cost you a small amount more. If, by coincidence, the balances are close, the difference will also be small. The above aside, it's the rest of your situation that will tell you the right path for you. For example, a matched 401(k) deposit should take priority over most debt repayment. The $11,000 might be better conserved for a house downpayment as that $66/mo is student loan and won't count as the housing debt, rather \"\"other debt\"\" and part of the higher ratio when qualifying for the mortgage. If you already have taken this into account, by all means, pay off the 8.75% debt asap, then start paying off the 3% faster. Keep in mind, this is likely the lowest rate debt one can have and once paid off, you can't withdraw it again. So it's important to consider the big picture first. (Are you depositing to a retirement account? Is it a 401(k) and are you getting any matching from the company?)\""
},
{
"docid": "128698",
"title": "",
"text": "As a new graduate, aside from the fact that you seem to have the extra $193/mo to pay more towards your loan, we don't know anything else. I wrote a lengthy article on this in response to a friend who had a loan, but was also pondering a home purchase in the future. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage discusses the math behind one's ability to put a downpayment on a house vs having that monthly cash to pay towards the mortgage. In your case, the question is whether, in 5 years, the $8500 would be best spent as a home down payment or to pay off the 6.8% loan. If you specifically had plans toward home ownership, the timing of that plan would affect my answer here, as I discuss in the article. The right answer to your question can only come by knowing far more of your personal situation. Meanwhile, the plan comes at a cost. Your plan will get rid of the loan in about 5 years, but if you simply double up the payments, advising the servicing company to apply the extra to principal, it would drop to just a couple month over over 4. As you read more about personal finance, you'll find a lot of different views. Some people are fixated on having zero debt, others will focus on liquidity. In the end, you need to understand each approach and decide what's right for you."
},
{
"docid": "564408",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming the numbers in your comments are accurate, you have $2400/month \"\"extra\"\" after paying your expenses. I assume this includes loan payments. You said you have $3k in savings and a $2900 \"\"monthly nut\"\", so only one month of living expenses in savings. In my opinion, your first goal should be to put 100% of your extra money towards savings each month, until you have six months of living expenses saved. That's $2,900 * 6 or $17,400. Since you have $3K already that means you need $14,400 more, which is exactly six months @ $2,400/month. Next I would pay off your $4K for the bedroom furniture. I don't know the terms you got, but usually if you are not completely paid off when it comes time to pay interest, the rate is very high and you have to pay interest not just going forward, but from the inception of the loan (YMMV--check your loan terms). You may want to look into consolidating your high interest loans into a single loan at a lower rate. Barring that, I would put 100% of my extra monthly income toward your 10% loan until its paid off, and then your 9.25% loan until that's paid off. I would not consider investing in any non-tax-advantaged vehicle until those two loans (at minimum) were paid off. 9.25% is a very good guaranteed return on your money. After that I would continue the strategy of aggressively paying the maximum per month toward your highest interest loans until they are all paid off (with the possible exception of the very low rate Sallie Mae loans). However, I'm probably more conservative than your average investor, and I have a major aversion to paying interest. :)\""
},
{
"docid": "489101",
"title": "",
"text": "An option that no one has yet suggested is selling the car, paying off the loan in one lump sum (adding cash from your emergency sum, if need be), and buying an old beater in its place. With the beater you should be able to get a few years out of it - hopefully enough to get you through your PhD and into a better income situation where you can then assess a new car purchase (or more gently-used car purchase, to avoid the drive-it-off-the-lot income loss). Even better than buying another car that you can afford to pay for is if you can survive without that car, depending on your location and public transit options. Living car free saves you not only this payment but gas and maintenance, though it costs you in public transit terms. Right now it looks as if this debt is hurting you more than the amount in your emergency fund is helping. Don't wipe out your emergency fund completely, but be willing to lower it in order to wipe out this debt."
},
{
"docid": "559745",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@fredsbend, Hope this helps! \"\"I understand that a reverse mortgage can be paid out in two ways: A lump sum and monthly payments. I figure that if you take the lump sum, eventually, the bank wants you to start paying it back.\"\" Answer: Actually, there are 3 payout options, or 4 if you consider a combination payout as another one. There's a lump sum, a line of credit, or the monthly payout, or a combination. \"\"I figure that if you take the monthly payments, eventually, the bank stops paying out and wants you to pay it back. In both situations, interest accrues and this is how the bank makes money off of the deal\"\". Answer: The only time the monthly payments would stop would be if the borrower defaults on the lenders' terms or they no longer live at home. You are right though, and interest does accrue on whichever payment is decided on. I'm not sure how the lender makes money, probably by the interest, but I know borrowers are protected against high rates and owing more than your house. Here's an article I found that goes over the protections more in detail: https://www.americanadvisorsgroup.com/news/6-consumer-protections-reverse-mortgage-loan-borrowers. \"\"But what determines when you have to begin paying back the reverse mortgage? Some sources online seem to say that it's based only on if you die or would like to sell/move. That can't be right in all situations, because you could end up with a massive debt on a property more than its value.\"\" Answer: There are a lot of protections or regulations in place to protect anyone who takes out a reverse mortgage. One being, you can't owe MORE than your house is valued at during the time of repayment, a reverse mortgage is a non-recourse loan. In the instance that your house is less than you owe, you either sell the home and the proceeds are used to pay the loan and you keep the rest OR if you owe more than the house proceeds of the home go to the lender. Either way, you're not left paying for a \"\"mortgage\"\" without the house. In the case the parent, grandparent passes, then the heirs would have a choice of either paying back the reverse mortgage in payments, OR they can sell the house, heirs are protected during this as well to make sure they're not left with major debt in case of anything. Is there a formula to figure out when the bank stops the monthly payments and then wants it back? **Answer:**The amount becomes due if loan terms are not met, but the lender will discuss the options if it comes to that. Is there a different formula for when the lump sum would have to be paid back?\"\" Answer: Each payout option has the same terms and the same pay back terms. As long as terms are met, the lender can't ask for early repayment.\""
},
{
"docid": "241379",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Would you run a marathon with ankle weights on? It starts off as ankle weights, but then grows into a ball and chain as you dig yourself a little deeper each time you use your credit card (and then don't payoff the balance because \"\"something more important came up\"\"). I would love for my wife to be able to be home and raise our son, but we simply can't afford to do that with the amount of debt we have. We are clawing our way out, and will pay off one student loan and a car loan, then start saving for a house and once we have that, we'll get back to debt reduction. Get debt free. That's where we are headed. Most of it is student loans at this point, but debt will take away your freedom to do whatever you like down the line. It just increases your overhead in the long run.\""
},
{
"docid": "437879",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\""
},
{
"docid": "429746",
"title": "",
"text": "Typically your statement will break down each of the balances that carry a different rate, so you'll see them lumped into the 0% line, or two separates lines with different rates for each. If you don't see it on the statement, a quick call to your bank should clarify it for you. If I had to guess, I would lean towards the fee likely being at 0% also, but if it isn't, typically you would pay the minimum + $350 on your next statement. (Because only amounts over the minimum go towards principal of the highest rates first, at least this is true in the US for personal accounts.) Of course this is something your bank should be able to clarify as well. Balance Transfer Tip: I always recommend setting up automatic payments when you take advantage of a balance transfer offer. The reason is, oftentimes buried deeply in the terms and conditions, is an evil phrase which says that if you miss a payment, they have the right to revoke the promotional rate and start charging you a higher rate. That would be bad enough if it happened, but to make things worse I believe the fee you paid for the transfer is not returned to you. So, set up an auto payment each month for at least the minimum payment. And if you can afford it, divide the total transferred by the number of months and pay that amount each month. (Assuming you don't pay interest on the fee: $17,500 * 1.02 / 18 = $991.67/per month.) That way you'll have it paid off just in time to not have any higher interest when the promotional rate expires. If you don't know if you can afford the higher amount each month, set it to the max you know for sure you can afford, and make additional payments whenever you can."
},
{
"docid": "555947",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\""
},
{
"docid": "503723",
"title": "",
"text": "When you pay off a loan early, you pay the remaining principal, and you save all of the remaining interest. So you do save on interest, but it's the interest you would have paid in the future, not the interest you have paid in the past. (Your remaining balance when you pay off the loan only includes the principal, not the projected interest.) Interest is a factor of the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the amount of time you borrow the money. The sooner you repay the money, the less interest you pay. Imagine if you had taken a 30 year loan at 4% interest but were allowed to make no payments until the loan term ended. If you waited 15 years to make your first payment, you wouldn't owe the same money as if you'd made payments every month. No, instead of owing ~$64k, you'd owe ~$182k, because you had borrowed $100k for 15 years (plus the interest due) rather than borrowing a declining sum. So that's why you don't get a refund on interest for previous months. If you had started with a 16 year loan, then you would have been paying more principal every month, and your monthly amount due would have been higher to reflect that. As you paid the principal off faster, the interest each month would drop faster. Paying a huge portion of the principal at the end of the loan is not the same as steadily paying it down in the same time frame. You will pay a lot more interest in the former case, and rightfully so. It might help to consider a credit card payment in comparison. If you run up a balance and pay only the minimum each month, you pay a lot of interest over time, because your principal goes down slowly. If you suddenly pay off your credit card, you don't have to pay any more interest, but you also don't get any interest back for previous months. That's because the interest accrued each month is based on your current balance, just like your mortgage. The minimum payments are calculated differently, but the interest accrued each month uses essentially the same mechanism."
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "455614",
"title": "",
"text": "Just one more thing to consider: a friend of mine had some student loan debt left over from graduate school. Years later, through his employer, he was able to apply for and receive a grant that paid off the remainder of his student loan. It was literally free money, and a significant amount, too. The windfall was a little bittersweet for him because he had been making extra payments over the years. The cap on the grant was something like $50k and he wasn't able to use all of it because he had been aggressive in paying it down. (Still, free money is free money.) Sure, this is a unique situation, but grants happen."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "550420",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As I understand it, if the \"\"borrower\"\" puts a down payment of 20% and the bank puts down 80%, then the bank and the \"\"borrower\"\" own the home jointly as tenants in common with a 20%-80% split of the asset amongst them. The \"\"borrower\"\" moves into the home and pays the bank 80% of the fair rental value of the home each month. {Material added/changed in edit: For the purposes of illustration, suppose that the \"\"borrower\"\" and the bank agree that the fair rental per month is 0.5% of the purchase cost. The \"\"borrower\"\" pays 80% of that amount i.e. 0.4% of the purchase cost to the bank on a monthly basis. The \"\"borrower\"\" is not required to do so but may choose to pay more money than this 0.4% of the purchase cost each month, or pay some amount in a lump sum. If he does so, he will own a larger percentage of the house, and so future monthly payments will be a smaller fraction of the agreed-upon fair rental per month. So there is an incentive to pay off the bank.} If and when the house is sold, the sale price is divided between \"\"borrower\"\" and bank according to the percentage of ownership as of the date of sale. So the bank gets to share in the profits, if any. On the other hand, if the house is sold for less than the original purchase price, then the bank also suffers in the loss. It is not a case of a mortgage being paid off from the proceeds and the home-owner gets whatever is left, or even suffering a loss when the dust has settled; the bank gets only its percentage of the sale price even if this amount is less than what it put up in the first place minus any additional payments made by the \"\"borrower\"\". I have no idea how other costs of home ownership (property taxes, insurance, repair and maintenance) or improvements, additions, etc are handled. Ditto what happens on Schedule A if such a \"\"loan\"\" is made to a US taxpayer.\""
},
{
"docid": "187526",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, excellent choice to say no to non-subsidized loans! But I'd say you are cutting things very close either way, and you need to face up to that now. $35/mo extra at the end of the month is \"\"within the noise\"\" of financial life, meaning you should think of it as essentially $0 each month or even negative money, since one vet bill/school books/unforeseen problem could remove it for the entire year, easily. You are leaving yourself no buffer. But by taking the loan, unless you are (as Joe said) socking away savings to pay for it upon graduation, you are guaranteeing you'll leave college with debt, which I think should be avoided if you can. Could you do a hybrid plan in which you worked hard to do the following?: If you do these things or something along these lines, the loan is probably OK; if not, I'd be concerned about taking it. [Probably unnecessary, but: Keep in mind that student loans are not excusable by bankruptcy, so one is on the hook for them no matter what]. Also consider whether you can take a semester off now and then to catch up financially. The key is to really stay far from the edge of any financial cliffs.\""
},
{
"docid": "121505",
"title": "",
"text": "First, check with your lender to see if the terms of the loan allow early payoff. If you are able to payoff early without penalty, with the numbers you are posting, I would hesitate to refinance. This is simply because if you actually do pay 5k/month on this loan you will have it paid off so quickly that refinancing will probably not save you much money. Back-of-the-napkin math at 5k/month has you paying 60k pounds a year, which will payoff in about 5 years. Even if you can afford 5k/month, I would recommend not paying extra on this debt ahead of other high-interest debt or saving in a tax-advantaged retirement account. If these other things are being taken care of, and you have liquid assets (cash) for emergencies, I would recommend paying off the mortgage without refinancing."
},
{
"docid": "445655",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were you, I would pay off my student loans today or tomorrow. Wouldn't it be nice to be completely debt free and not owe anyone anything? It doesn't matter what the interest rate of the loan is; there is no need to spend anymore time trying to worry about whether or not the market will allow you to make a tiny bit extra over what you are spending in interest on the loan. Just get rid of the debt, and you will get to keep every bit of the growth of your investments from here on out. After the student loans are paid off, that leaves you with $15k. I would take $10k and put it in a savings account for an emergency fund, and put $5k as a start toward your retirement savings in a Roth IRA. At this point, with a fully funded emergency fund, a start on your retirement savings, and no debts, you have really set yourself up for success. Learn how to budget your income so that you spend less than you make and can save up toward goals like a car (paid for in cash) and a down payment on a house."
},
{
"docid": "6339",
"title": "",
"text": "Should I use the profit to pay down student loans or just roll it into my next house in order to have a lower mortgage amount? Calculate the amount of interest in each scenario, where the two scenarios are: Use extra cash to pay down student loans, take out a full mortgage. Use extra cash to make a big down payment on the next house, keep paying down student loans at normal rate. In both scenarios the student loan rate will stay the same. However in the second scenario you may get a lower interest rate from making a larger down payment. So then calculate the total interest resulting from each scenario: student loan rateXremaining student loan balance=student loan interest new mortgage rateXnew mortgage balance=mortgage interest scenario 1 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest student loan rateXstudent loan balance = student loan interest new mortgage rate with large down paymentXnew mortgage balance after large down payment = mortgage interest scenario 2 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest Whichever scenario's interest is lower will save money."
},
{
"docid": "489101",
"title": "",
"text": "An option that no one has yet suggested is selling the car, paying off the loan in one lump sum (adding cash from your emergency sum, if need be), and buying an old beater in its place. With the beater you should be able to get a few years out of it - hopefully enough to get you through your PhD and into a better income situation where you can then assess a new car purchase (or more gently-used car purchase, to avoid the drive-it-off-the-lot income loss). Even better than buying another car that you can afford to pay for is if you can survive without that car, depending on your location and public transit options. Living car free saves you not only this payment but gas and maintenance, though it costs you in public transit terms. Right now it looks as if this debt is hurting you more than the amount in your emergency fund is helping. Don't wipe out your emergency fund completely, but be willing to lower it in order to wipe out this debt."
},
{
"docid": "75636",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason it's broken out is very specific: this is showing you how much interest accrued during the month. It is the only place that's shown, typically. Each month's (minimum) payment is the sum of [the interest accrued during that month] and [some principal], say M=I+P, and B is your total loan balance. That I is fixed at the amount of interest that accrued that month - you always must pay off the accrued interest. It changes each month as some of the principal is reduced; if you have a 3% daily interest rate, you owe (0.03*B*31) approximately (plus a bit as the interest on the interest accrues) each month (or *30 or *28). Since B is going down constantly as principal is paid off, I is also going down. The P is most commonly calculated based on an amortization table, such that you have a fixed payment amount each month and pay the loan off after a certain period of time. That's why P changes each month - because it's easier for people to have a constant monthly payment M, than to have a fixed P and variable I for a variable M. As such, it's important to show you the I amount, both so you can verify that the loan is being correctly charged/paid, and for your tax purposes."
},
{
"docid": "372782",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You'd have to check the terms of your contract. On most installment loans, I think, they calculate interest monthly, not daily. That is, if you make 3 payments of $96 over the course of the month instead of one payment of $288 at the end of the month (but before the due date), it makes absolutely zero difference to their interest calculation. They just total up your payments for the month. That's how my mortgage works and how some past loans I've had worked. All you'd accomplish is to cost yourself some time, postage if you're mailing payments, and waste the bank's time processing multiple payments. If the loan allows you to make pre-payments -- which I think most loans today do -- then what DOES work is to make an extra payment or an overpayment. If you have a few hundred extra dollars, make an extra payment. This reduces your principle and reduces the amount of interest you pay every month for the remainder of the loan. And if you're paying $1 less in interest, then that extra dollar goes against principle, which further reduces the amount you pay in interest the next month. This snowballs and can save you a lot in the long run. Better still, instead of paying $288 each month, pay, say, $300. Then every month you're nibbling away at the principle faster and faster. For example, I calculate that if you're paying $288 per month, you'll pay the loan off in 72 months and pay a total of $6062 in interest. Pay $300 per month and you'll pay it off in 67 months with a total of $6031 interest. Okay, not a huge deal. Pay $350 per month and you pay it off in 55 months with $5449 interest. (I just did quick calculations with a spreadsheet, not accurate to the penny, but close enough for comparison.) PS This is different from \"\"revolving credit\"\", like credit cards, where interest is calculated on the \"\"average daily balance\"\". With a credit card, making multiple payments would indeed reduce your interest. But not by much. If you pay $100 every 10 days instead of $300 at the end, then you're saving the interest on 20 days x $100 + 10 days x $100, so 12.5% = 0.03% per day, so 0.03% x ($2000+$1000) = 90 cents. If you're mailing your payments, the postage is 49 cents x 2 extra payments = 98 cents. You're losing 8 cents per month by doing this.\""
},
{
"docid": "221364",
"title": "",
"text": "Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month."
},
{
"docid": "569628",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \"\"essentials\"\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \"\"financial\"\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\""
},
{
"docid": "435105",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Much of the interest on a loan comes in the first years of a mortgage, so the sooner you can pay that off, the better. But let's see what the numbers say. If you have a loan at 4%, principal of $100,000, a term of 30 years, then this gives monthly payments of $477.42 (using the Excel PMT function). If you sell the house after precisely 5 years worth of payments, then you have made $28,644.92 in payments, you still owe $90,924.93. Suppose you sell the house for $100,000. That means you will be in the hole for: $100,000 - $90,924.93 - $28,644.92 = -$19,569.85 Now, suppose you pay an extra $50 per month over the five years. The same calculation becomes: $100,000 - $87,659.98 - $31,644.92 = -$19,304.90 So in this scenario, which is a little simplistic, you are $264.95 better off. The question you have to ask is whether you could have done better investing the $3,000 in extra payments somewhere else. The CAGR in doing this is 1.7%, so you might be better off putting the money away. Running the same numbers for a 6% mortgage the CAGR you have is about 2.7%. Edit I've added a Google Docs spreadsheet (read-only) that you can download and play with. Feel free to correct anything you find amiss! Edit 2 OK, so I've had a look at what JoeTaxpayer is saying in the comments below, and now I agree: The CAGR should be 4%. Where I want wrong was to assume that the $50 per month payments over the five years are worth $50 * 5 * 12 = $3000. This neglects the \"\"time value of money\"\" --- having small amounts of money periodically, rather than all of it in a lump sum. Including this makes the \"\"effective\"\" value of the monthly $50 payments $2714.95 written as =PV(0.04/12,60,-50) in Excel or Google Docs. I've added a tab to the original spreadsheet to show the different calculations. Note that it still doesn't quite come to 4%, but I guess it's a minor error in the sheet. NB: I know, I'm leaving out mortgage interest tax relief, costs for selling etc. etc.\""
},
{
"docid": "541856",
"title": "",
"text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? I don't see anything you should be deathly concerned about unless your career outlook is very poor and you are making minimum wage. If that is the case you may struggle for the next 10 years. Are these rates considered super high or manageable? The rates for the federal loans are around twice as high as your private loans but that is the going rate and there is nothing you can do about it now. 6.5% isn't bad on what is essentially a personal loan. 2-3% are very manageable assuming you pay them and don't let the interest build up. What is a good mode of attack here? I am by no means a financial adviser and don't know the rest of your financial situation, but the most general advice I can give you is pay down your highest interest rate loans first and always try to pay more than the minimum. In your case, I would put as much as you reasonably can towards the federal loans because that will save you money in the long run. What are the main takeaways I should understand about these loans? The main takeaway is that these are student loans and they cannot be discharged if you were to ever declare bankruptcy. Pay them off but don't be too concerned about them. If you do apply for loans in the future, most lenders won't be too concerned about student loans assuming you are paying them on time and especially if you are paying more than the minimum payment. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? The payoff dates for the other loans are a little hard to easily calculate, but it appears they all have different payoff dates between 8 and 12 years from now. This part might be easier for someone who is better at financial calculations than me. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Your citi loans have a higher balance probably because you have not payed anything towards them yet so the interest has been accruing since you got them."
},
{
"docid": "413955",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @michael's solid answer, I would suggest sitting down and analyzing what your priorities are about paying off the student loan debt versus investing that money immediately. (Regardless, the first thing you should do is, as michael suggested, pay off the credit card debt) Since it looks like you will be having some new expenses coming up soon (rent, possibly a new car), as part of that prioritization you should calculate what your rent (and associated bills) will cost you on a monthly basis (including saving a bit each month!) and see if you can afford to pay everything without incurring new debt. I'd recommend trying to come up with several scenarios to see how cheaply you can live (roommates, maybe you can figure out a way to go without a car, etc). If, for whatever reason, you find you can't afford everything, then I would suggest taking a portion of your inheritance to at least pay off enough of your student loans so that you can afford all of your costs per month, and then save or invest the rest. (You can invest all you like, but if you don't live within your means, it won't do you any good.) Finally -- be aware that you may have other factors that come into play that may override financial considerations. I found myself in a situation similar to yours, and in my case, I chose to pay off my debts, not because it necessarily made the best financial sense, but that because of those other considerations, paying off that debt meant I had a significant level of stress removed from my life, and a lot more peace of mind."
},
{
"docid": "277664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\""
},
{
"docid": "399863",
"title": "",
"text": "NO, you pay off the Highest interest charging accounts first. The zero interest loan should be the Last one you pay off. Basically payoff your student loan and put the extra money to the car loan"
},
{
"docid": "576694",
"title": "",
"text": "Remember, carrying debt on a credit card and waiting to pay it is increased risk in the event something happens and you can't pay it off. I have 1 CC and I have it set to auto-pay on the day it's due (paid in full each month as I don't carry debt anymore - learned that lesson a hard way :) ). So the day it's due it auto-drafts out of my checking. No worries of late payments, missed payments, etc. If you feel that having any balance is bad then by all means pay it off the minute you get your statement. It should come at the same time each month (or close to the same time) and you should be able to setup an auto-payment to pay it off in full as soon as the new statement goes live. To be honest, those extra few days of supposed interest saved by keeping the money in your checking account is so minimal that's it's probably not worth it. Most checking is horrible in interest (all my 'high interest' checking accounts are now less than 1% APR. boo.) and if you're late 1 day then bam! All that earned interest is gone in 1 late fee..."
},
{
"docid": "479213",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "590623",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here."
},
{
"docid": "437879",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\""
}
] |
6221 | To pay off a student loan, should I save up a lump sum payoff payment or pay extra each month? | [
{
"docid": "115717",
"title": "",
"text": "Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "433171",
"title": "",
"text": "You're halfway done with the debt elimination. Keep up the good work. The student loan debt will get in your way a couple of ways when you look to finance a house. First, your debt to income ratio will be higher than without the debt, so you'll be able to qualify for a smaller loan with the debt than without. Second, you'll have the student loan payments in addition to your mortgage. This may wear on you. I'd look for ways to make extra money to knock out those student loan debts ASAP. The rates aren't horrible. That, and I think there is still some time before the housing market bottoms out, so you don't need to rush into the house. If you can handle the entire debt load (student loans + mortgage) then if you save up for the down payment, that money isn't being used to pay down your student loans, and paying your students loans off won't get any easier when you get a mortgage on top of that."
},
{
"docid": "188713",
"title": "",
"text": "Carmax will be interested in setting a price that allows them to make money on the reselling of the vehicle. They won't offer you more than that. The determination of the value compared to the BlueBook value is based on condition and miles. The refinancing of the auto loan could lower your monthly payment, but may not save you any money in the short term. The new lender will also want an evaluation of the vehicle, and if it is less than the payoff amount of the current loan they will ask you to make a lump sum payment. This is addition to the cost of getting the new loan setup. If you can pay the delta between the value of the car and loan then do so, when you sell the car. Don't refinance unless you plan on keeping the car for many months, or you are just adding paperwork to the transaction."
},
{
"docid": "65461",
"title": "",
"text": "First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner. If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase. If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way. So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years). After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year). There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters. (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.) However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank. So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate. If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates. These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time. For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%. On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%. (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest. The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are. If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high. I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option."
},
{
"docid": "172084",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Should I allow the credit cards to be paid out of escrow in one lump sum? Or should I take the cash and pay the cards down over a few months. I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? Will the money you save by increasing your credit score (assuming this statement is true) be larger than by eliminating the interest payments for the credit card payments over \"\"a few months\"\" (13% APR at $24,000 is $3120 a year in interest; $260 a month, so if \"\"a few months\"\" is three, that would cost over $700 - note that as you pay more principal the overall amount of interest decreases, so the \"\"a year\"\" in interest could go down depending on the principal payments). Also, on a related note regarding credit score, it doesn't look good to have more than a third of a credit line available balance exceeded (see number 2 here: http://credit.about.com/od/buildingcredit/tp/building-good-credit.htm).\""
},
{
"docid": "103093",
"title": "",
"text": "Staying with your numbers - a 7% long term return will have a tax of 15% (today's long term cap gain tax) resulting in a post tax of 5.95%. On the other hand, even if the student loan interest remains deductible, it's subject to phaseout and a really successful grad will quickly lose the deduction. There's a similar debate regarding mortgage debt. When I've commented on my 3.5% mortgage costing 2.5% post tax, there's no consensus agreeing that this loan should remain as long as possible in favor of investing in the market for its long term growth. And in this case the advantage is a full 3.45%/yr. While I've made my decision, Ben's points remain, the market return isn't guaranteed, while that monthly loan payment is fixed and due each month. In the big picture, I'd prioritize to make deposits to the 401(k) up to the match, if offered, pay down any higher interest debt such as credit cards, build an emergency account, and then make extra payments to the student loan. Keep in mind, also - if buying a house is an important goal, the savings toward the downpayment might take priority. Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote which describes the interaction between that loan debt and your mortgage borrowing ability. It's worth understanding the process as paying off the S/L too soon can impact that home purchase."
},
{
"docid": "191508",
"title": "",
"text": "Forget about terms. Think about loans in terms of months. To simplify things, let's consider a $1000 loan with .3% interest per month. This looks like a ten month term, but it's equally reasonable to think about it on a month-to-month basis. In the first month, you borrowed $1000 and accrued $3 interest. With the $102 payment, that leaves $901 which you borrow for another month. So on and so forth. The payoff after five payments would by $503.54 ($502.03 principal plus $1.51 interest). You'd save $2.99 in interest after paying $13.54. The reason why most of the interest was already paid is that you already did most of the borrowing. You borrowed $502.03 for six months and about $100 each for five, four, three, two, and one month. So you borrowed about $4500 months (you borrowed $1000 for the first month, $901 for the second month, etc.). The total for a ten month $1000 loan is about $5500 months of borrowing. So you've done 9/11 of the borrowing. It's unsurprising that you've paid about 9/11 of the interest. If you did this as a six month loan instead, then the payments look different. Say You borrow $1000 for one month. Then 834 for one month. So on and so forth. Adding that together, you get about $168.50 * 21 or $3538.50 months borrowed. Since you only borrow about 7/9 as much, you should pay 7/9 the interest. And if we adding things up, we get $10.54 in interest, about 7/9 of $13.54. That's how I would expect your mortgage to work in the United States (and I'd expect it to be similar elsewhere). Mortgages are pretty straight-jacketed by federal and state regulations. I too once had a car loan that claimed that early payment didn't matter. But to get rid of the loan, I made extra payments. And they ended up crediting me with an early release. In fact, they rebated part of my last payment. I saved several hundred dollars through the early release. Perhaps your loan did not work the same way. Perhaps it did. But in any case, mortgages don't generally work like you describe."
},
{
"docid": "260959",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Money is a token that you can trade to other people for favors. Debt is a tool that allows you to ask for favors earlier than you might otherwise. What you have currently is: If the very worst were to happen, such as: You would owe $23,000 favors, and your \"\"salary\"\" wouldn't make a difference. What is a responsible amount to put toward a car? This is a tricky question to answer. Statistically speaking the very worst isn't worth your consideration. Only the \"\"very bad\"\", or \"\"kinda annoying\"\" circumstances are worth worrying about. The things that have a >5% chance of actually happening to you. Some of the \"\"very bad\"\" things that could happen (10k+ favors): Some of the \"\"kinda annoying\"\" things that could happen (~5k favors): So now that these issues are identified, we can settle on a time frame. This is very important. Your $30,000 in favors owed are not due in the next year. If your student loans have a typical 10-year payoff, then your risk management strategy only requires that you keep $3,000 in favors (approx) because that's how many are due in the next year. Except you have more than student loans for favors owed to others. You have rent. You eat food. You need to socialize. You need to meet your various needs. Each of these things will cost a certain number of favors in the next year. Add all of them up. Pretending that this data was correct (it obviously isn't) you'd owe $27,500 in favors if you made no money. Up until this point, I've been treating the data as though there's no income. So how does your income work with all of this? Simple, until you've saved 6-12 months of your expenses (not salary) in an FDIC or NCUSIF insured savings account, you have no free income. If you don't have savings to save yourself when bad things happen, you will start having more stress (what if something breaks? how will I survive till my next paycheck? etc.). Stress reduces your life expectancy. If you have no free income, and you need to buy a car, you need to buy the cheapest car that will meet your most basic needs. Consider carpooling. Consider walking or biking or public transit. You listed your salary at \"\"$95k\"\", but that isn't really $95k. It's more like $63k after taxes have been taken out. If you only needed to save ~$35k in favors, and the previous data was accurate (it isn't, do your own math): Per month you owe $2,875 in favors (34,500 / 12) Per month you gain $5,250 in favors (63,000 / 12) You have $7,000 in initial capital--I mean--favors You net $2,375 each month (5,250 - 2,875) To get $34,500 in favors will take you 12 months ( ⌈(34,500 - 7,000) / 2,375⌉ ) After 12 months you will have $2,375 in free income each month. You no longer need to save all of it (Although you may still need to save some of it. Be sure recalculate your expenses regularly to reevaluate if you need additional savings). What you do with your free income is up to you. You've got a safety net in saved earnings to get you through rough times, so if you want to buy a $100,000 sports car, all you have to do is account for it in your savings and expenses in all further calculations as you pay it off. To come up with a reasonable number, decide on how much you want to spend per month on a car. $500 is a nice round number that's less than $2,375. How many years do you want to save for the car? OR How many years do you want to pay off a car loan? 4 is a nice even number. $500 * 12 * 4 = $24,000 Now reduce that number 10% for taxes and fees $24,000 * 0.9 = $21,600 If you're getting a loan, deduct the cost of interest (using 5% as a ballpark here) $21,600 * 0.95 = $20,520 So according to my napkin math you can afford a car that costs ~$20k if you're willing to save/owe $500/month, but only after you've saved enough to be financially secure.\""
},
{
"docid": "243065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\""
},
{
"docid": "81206",
"title": "",
"text": "When paying off multiple debts there is a protocol that many support. Payoff your debts according to the snowball method. The snowball method proposes that you make minimum payments on all debts except the smallest one. Payoff the smallest debt as quickly as possible. As smaller debts are paid off, that makes one less minimum payment you need to make, leaving you with more money to put against the next smallest debt. So in your case, pay off the smaller debt completely, then follow up on the larger one by making regular payments at least equal to the sum of your two current minimum payments. You'll see immediate progress in tackling your debt and have one less minimum to worry about, which can serve as a little safety of it's own if you have a bad month. As to saving the thousand dollars, that is pragmatic and prudent. It's not financially useful (you won't make any money in a savings account), but having cash on hand for emergencies and various other reasons is an important security for modern living. As suggested in another answer, you can forgo saving this thousand and put it against debt now, because you will have a freed up credit card. Credit can certainly give you that same security. This is an alternative option, but not all emergencies will take a credit card. You typically can't make rent with your credit card, for example. Good luck paying your debts and I hope you can soon enjoy the freedom of a debt free life."
},
{
"docid": "502170",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Since you already have an emergency fund in place, focus your extra funds on paying off debts like student loans. While some have advised you to play the stock market, not one person has mentioned the word \"\"risk\"\". You are gambling (\"\"investing\"\") your money in the hopes your money will grow. Your student loan is real liability. The longer you keep the loan, the more interest you will pay. You can pay off your student loan in 21 months if you pay $1,100 each month. After the 21 months, you can almost fully fund a 401(k) each year. That will be amazing at your age. Our company gives us the Vanguard Retirement Fund with a low expense ratio of 0.19%. It is passive automated investing where you don't have to think about it. Just add money and just let it ride.\""
},
{
"docid": "541313",
"title": "",
"text": "Since you are considering dumping your savings into your student loans when they are equal, you should go ahead and do it now. You will immediately reap the benefit of paying less interest per month. Also, your minimum monthly payments will decrease so if you had unexpected expenses pop up, you could shrink your payments for a limited time. If you don't have emergency expenses, more of your regular monthly payment will go toward the principle of your loan and pay it off faster. Make a goal to get your savings back up as soon as you can after your loans are paid off. In the mean time, see what other things you can cut back on like eating less expensive food or switching to a less expensive phone plan. If you have stuff you don't need anymore, try selling it on Craiglist or eBay. Or just focus on doing more at work so you can get a raise. These things are not necessary, but it's a good feeling to be able to shave another month or two off paying a debt."
},
{
"docid": "360628",
"title": "",
"text": "Determining how much you should budget to spend on any area of your budget is one of those hard topics to find good information about. Part of the problem is that everyone has different priorities and needs, and incomes and expenses vary greatly depending upon where you live and your career choices. The best thing you can do is track your spending for 1-3 months (you can use the envelope system if you need to, to track and control how much you spend on miscellaneous things like lunches, coffee, etc). The precision is important, though you probably dont need to measure to the penny, however you should capture all the areas where you spend money (even if you later gather them into more broad areas). Split your spending into three broad areas, and try to limit the spending for each of those areas to the stated percentages (adjust for your preferences). You state net Income $2600, and you stated you have $1731 of known expenses, so you are spending another $870 on groceries, debt payments, restaurants, unplanned expenses, and emergencies. Essentials (50%,$1300) - rent, transportation, food, utilites Total $972+groceries (you probably spend $400-600 on groceries, so your essentials are higher by $100-300 than you can afford. You should try to cut your electricity usage ($30-50), and you may be able to find cheaper car insurance (save $20). Financial Priorities (30%,$780) - savings, debt payments Total $376, nearly 15% before you pay for credit cards and savings. Please focus on paying off your debts (credit cards, window loan, student loans). You are spending almost 10% of your income on student loans, and you cannot afford much other debt. Lifestyle (20%,$520) Total $279, over 10% of your income on communications! Please try to cut cellphone, and DirectTV costs, at least until you have reduced debt. Since you have internet, your wife could use a voip provider (vonage, ooma telo, etc) or get an ipod touch and use skype or similar, at least until you get out of debt. You might consider trying to find a way to earn extra money, until you have paid off either the loan for windows, your credit card debt, or one of your student loans."
},
{
"docid": "437879",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\""
},
{
"docid": "224062",
"title": "",
"text": "This depends in part on the bank holding your loan and the loan agreement. Some loans will accept partial payments and apply them immediately; some will not accept partial payments at all, and some will accept the payment but hold the funds until the payment is at least your complete payment. You should check your loan agreement to find out how the payment will be processed, as well as how it will be applied. It also is relevant how interest is calculated and accrued; if your interest is a daily rate, then you may save some money this way, but if it's a monthly rate then you wouldn't necessarily. Either way you wouldn't really save very much money; in your particular case you'd be saving $0.15 per month (.025/24 = .001 semimonthly interest rate, $150 paid halfway through the month means you pay .001*150 less interest). Is that $0.15 worth it? Up to you I guess. If you're paying that for 5 year loan, you'll end up ahead $9 at the end of it. Finally, there is a kind of program often offered to new mortgage holders where you pay every two weeks (like your paycheck) and thus 'pay down your mortgage faster by saving on interest', which is true, but it's because you make 26 half payments per year instead of 12 full (or 24 half) payments, not primarily because of particular savings on interest due to timing (and of course the program offerer has to make money somewhere!). Paying an extra 8.33% each year is certainly a good way to pay off your loan faster, but it's not primarily due to the frequency of those payments."
},
{
"docid": "110081",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It really depends on the answers to two questions: 1) How tight is your budget going to be if you have to make that $530 payment every month? Obviously, you'd still be better off than you are now, since that's still $30 cheaper. But, if you're living essentially paycheck to paycheck, then the extra flexibility of the $400/month option can make the difference if something unforeseen happens. 2) How disciplined (financially) have you proven you can be? The \"\"I'll make extra payments every month\"\" sounds real nice, but many people end up not doing it. I should know, I'm one of them. I'm still paying on my student loans because of it. If you know (by having done it before), that you can make that extra $130 go out each and every month and not talk yourself into using it on all sorts of \"\"more important needs\"\", then hey, go for it. Financial flexibility is a great thing, and having that monthly nut (all your minimum living expenses combined) as low as possible contributes greatly to that flexibility. Update: Another thing to consider Another thing to consider is what they do with your extra payment. Will they apply it to the principal, or will they treat it as a prepayment? If they apply it to principal, it'll be just like if you had that shorter term. Your principal goes down additionally by that extra amount, and the next month, you owe another $400. On the other hand, if they treat it as a prepayment, then that extra $130 will be applied to the next month's bill. Principal stays the same, and the next month you'll be billed $270. There are two practical differences for you: 1) With prepayment, you'll pay slightly more interest over that 60 months paying it off. Because it's not amortized into the loan, the principal balance doesn't go down faster while the loan exists. And since interest is calculated on the remaining principal balance, end result is more interest than you otherwise would have paid. That sucks, but: 2) with the prepayment, consider that at the end of year 2, you'd have over 7 months of payments prepaid. So, if some emergency does come up, you don't have to send them any money at all for 7 months. There's that flexibility again. :-) Honestly, while this is something you should find out about the loan, it's really still a wash. I haven't done the math, but with the interest rate, amount of the loan and time frame, I think the extra interest would be pretty minor.\""
},
{
"docid": "92894",
"title": "",
"text": "Well to start with I would make sure that the interest total you are collecting each month is greater than the interest total you are paying each month on your credit card debt. So if you have $200 a month in interest you pay the credit card company I would make sure that the interest you collect on the loan is more than $200 a month. And make sure that you use some portion of the principle payment to pay down the credit card debt so that you are still even or ahead of the interest you owe the credit card company. Beyond that I would want the rate to be higher than the borrower could expect from a bank. This will incentivize the borrower to either pay it off early or refinance the loan through a bank effectively paying it off early for you. Anything that shifts the risk off of you and onto someone else is in your favor here. You could also implement some sort of final payment fee and reduce this fee by a certain amount (presumably up to 100%) if it is paid off early. I would graduate that amount so there is still incentive if the buyer misses the original date but still incentive to meet the date. If the loan was for 10 years then I would probably do around .5% per year early. I would also get an attorney to draw up the loan paperwork to make sure that you(and potentially your heirs) are covered should you need to recover from a default, bankruptcy, or other potential problems. I would bet the lawyer fees will save you 5x+ the amount if only in headaches. And if you are dealing with family the lawyer makes a great fall guy to say I wish I could do that but the lawyer won't let me if the family member tries to take advantage."
},
{
"docid": "6339",
"title": "",
"text": "Should I use the profit to pay down student loans or just roll it into my next house in order to have a lower mortgage amount? Calculate the amount of interest in each scenario, where the two scenarios are: Use extra cash to pay down student loans, take out a full mortgage. Use extra cash to make a big down payment on the next house, keep paying down student loans at normal rate. In both scenarios the student loan rate will stay the same. However in the second scenario you may get a lower interest rate from making a larger down payment. So then calculate the total interest resulting from each scenario: student loan rateXremaining student loan balance=student loan interest new mortgage rateXnew mortgage balance=mortgage interest scenario 1 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest student loan rateXstudent loan balance = student loan interest new mortgage rate with large down paymentXnew mortgage balance after large down payment = mortgage interest scenario 2 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest Whichever scenario's interest is lower will save money."
},
{
"docid": "349544",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Make a list of all your expenses. I use an Excel spreadsheet but you can do it on the back of a napkin if you prefer. List fixed expenses, like rent, loan payments, insurance, etc. I include giving to church and charity as fixed expenses, but of course that's up to you. List regular but not fixed expenses, like food, heat and electricity, gas, etc. Come up with reasonable average or typical values for these. Keep records for at least a few months so you're not just guessing. (Though remember that some will vary with the season: presumably you spend a lot more on heat in the winter than in the summer, etc.) You should budget to put something into savings and retirement. If you're young and just starting out, it's easy to decide to postpone retirement savings. But the sooner you start, the more the money will add up. Even if you can't put away a lot, try to put away SOMETHING. And if you budget for it, you should just get used to not having this money to play with. Then total all this up and compare to your income. If the total is more than your income, you have a problem! You need to find a way to cut some expenses. I won't go any further with that thought -- that's another subject. Hopefully you have some money left over after paying all the regular expenses. That's what you have to play with for entertainment and other non-essentials. Make a schedule for paying your bills. I get paid twice a month, and so I pay most of my bills when I get a paycheck. I have some bills that I allocate to the first check of the month and some to the second, for others, whatever bills came in since my last check, I pay with the current check. I have it arranged so each check is big enough to pay all the bills that come from that check. If you can't do that, if you'll have a surplus from one check and a shortage from the next, then be sure to put money aside from the surplus check to cover the bills you'll pay at the next pay period. Always pay your bills before you spend money on entertainment. Always have a plan to pay your bills. Don't say, \"\"oh, I'll come up with the money somehow\"\". If you have debt -- student loans, car loans, etc -- have a plan to pay it off. One of the most common traps people fall into is saying, \"\"I really need to get out of debt. And I'm going to start paying off my debt. Next month, because this month I really want to buy this way cool toy.\"\" They put off getting out of debt until they have frittered away huge amounts of money on interest. Or worse, they keep accumulating new debt until they can't even pay the interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "277664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\""
}
] |
6252 | Is this mortgage advice good, or is it hooey? | [
{
"docid": "394551",
"title": "",
"text": "\"add the interest for the next 5 payments and divide that by how much you paid on the principal during that time Let's see - on a $200K 6% loan, the first 5 months is $4869. Principal reduction is $1127. I get 4.32 or 432%. But this is nonsense, you divide the interest over the mortgage balance, and get 6%. You only get those crazy numbers by dividing meaningless ratios. The fact that early on in a mortgage most of the payment goes to interest is a simple fact of the the 30 year nature of amortizing. You are in control, just add extra principal to the payment, if you wish. This idea sounds like the Money Merge Account peddled by UFirst. It's a scam if ever there was one. I wrote about it extensively on my site and have links to others as well. Once you get to this page, the first link is for a free spreadsheet to download, it beats MMA every time and shows how prepaying works, no smoke, no mirrors. The second link is a 65 page PDF that compiles nearly all my writing on this topic as I was one of the finance bloggers doing what I could to expose this scam. I admit it became a crusade, I went as far as buying key word ads on google to attract the search for \"\"money merge account\"\" only to help those looking to buy it find the truth. In the end, I spent a few hundred dollars but saved every visitor the $3500 loss of this program. No agent who dialoged with me in public could answer my questions in full, as they fell back on \"\"you need to believe in it.\"\" I have no issue with faith-based religion, it actually stands to reason, but mortgages are numbers and there's order to them. If you want my $3500, you should know how your system works. Not one does, or they would know it was a scam. Nassim Taleb, author of \"\"The Black Swan\"\" offered up a wonderful quote, \"\"if you see fraud, and do not say 'fraud,' you are a fraud.\"\" The site you link to isn't selling a product, but a fraudulent idea. What's most disturbing to me is that the math to disprove his assertion is not complex, not beyond grade school arithmetic. Update 2015 - The linked \"\"rule of thumb\"\" is still there. Still wrong of course. Another scam selling software to do this is now promoted by a spin off of UFirst, called Worth Unlimited. Same scam, new name.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "115111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\""
},
{
"docid": "491682",
"title": "",
"text": "First, some general advice that I think you should consider A good rule of thumb on home buying is to wait to buy until you expect to live in the same place for at least 5 years. This period of time is meant to reduce the impact of closing costs, which can be 1-5% of your total buying & selling price. If you bought and sold in the same year, for example, then you might need to pay over 5% of the value of your home to realtors & lawyers! This means that for many people, it is unwise to buy a home expecting it to be your 'starter' home, if you already are thinking about what your next (presumably bigger) home will look like. If you buy a townhouse expecting to sell it in 3 years to buy a house, you are partially gambling on the chance that increases in your townhome's value will offset the closing costs & mortgage interest paid. Increases in home value are not a sure thing. In many areas, the total costs of home ownership are about equivalent to the total costs of renting, when you factor in maintenance. I notice you don't even mention renting as an option - make sure you at least consider it, before deciding to buy! Also, don't buy a house expecting your life situation to 'make up the difference' in your budget. If you're expecting your girlfriend to move in with you in a year, that implies that you aren't living together now, and maybe haven't talked about it. Even if she says now that she would move in within a year, there's no guarantee that things work out that way. Taking on a mortgage is a commitment that you need to take on yourself; no one else will be liable for the payments. As for whether a townhouse or a detached house helps you meet your needs better, don't get caught up in terminology. There are few differences between houses & townhomes that are universal. Stereotypically townhomes are cheaper, smaller, noisier, and have condo associations with monthly fees to pay for maintenance on joint property. But that is something that differs on a case-by-case basis. Don't get tricked into buying a 1,100 sq ft house with a restrictive HOA, instead of a 1,400 sq ft free-hold townhouse, just because townhouses have a certain reputation. The only true difference between a house and a townhouse is that 1 or both of your walls are shared with a neighbor. Everything else is flexible."
},
{
"docid": "543365",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\""
},
{
"docid": "423229",
"title": "",
"text": "It looks like the advice the rep is giving is based primarily on the sunk cost fallacy; advice based on a fallacy is poor advice. Bob has recognised this trap and is explicitly avoiding it. It is possible that the advice that the rep is trying to give is that Fund #1 is presently undervalued but, if so, that is a good investment irrespective if Bob has lost money there before or even if he has ever had funds in it."
},
{
"docid": "443852",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: NO. Do NOT buy a house. Houses are a \"\"luxury\"\" good (see Why is a house not an investment?). Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment. Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them. Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional. I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts. Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible. Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less. Your kids do not need separate bedrooms. Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority. You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "4429",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a purely numerical statement that you should be able to check (and you CPA friend should be able to prove, if true). The general advice, I think, is that you should not use your retirement funds this way, but general advice does not apply equally well to everyone. You didn't give enough information for us to compute the answer, so you're on your own there. If you do this (or have the CPA do it), make sure that it accounts for all pluses and minuses that you'll have. On the minus side, you get any direct penalties in addition to potential loss of right to contribute for a period of time, so make sure you consider both aspects, especially to any degree that you would lose an employer contribution or match. Also consider the fact that the money already in is tax advantaged, and you won't be able to replace that amount later. So there will be a compounding effect to what was lost. (This may or may not be balanced by a mortgage interest deduction down the road - My guess is that it will not, but, again, the details of your situation may dictate a different path. The mortgage interest deduction decreases each year as you pay more principal whereas the compounding from being tax deferred tends to increase each year.)"
},
{
"docid": "154181",
"title": "",
"text": "Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner."
},
{
"docid": "517299",
"title": "",
"text": "You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance."
},
{
"docid": "493900",
"title": "",
"text": "Think about your priorities in life. Everybody is a little different. In my case I have a wife and child, so these are priorities for me, and you might have your own depending on your story. So if I lost my job, and I have no more money coming in (unemployment insurance runs out, savings depleted) then the bank can have the house. I personally would probably drop the house long before it came to that point. The first thing you do is talk to your creditors and work out a deal. At the same time I would stop paying for ALL unnecessary things (cable TV, extra cell phones, automobiles, leaving light bulbs on and turning the heat up over putting on a sweater). If I can't get a good deal from the creditors, I would stop paying the mortgage, find a place to live (family, friends, cheap apartment) while the credit is still good. My advice is to get yourself setup while your credit is good and you have SOME money in the bank. Waiting until the bank decides to foreclose is probably going to make your harder."
},
{
"docid": "590999",
"title": "",
"text": "> When that guy says you can go to 30A on a fuse, how do you feel about his opinion as an electrician? > Still say that non-electrician decisions have zero bearing on how you feel about his abilities as an electrician? Do you have a friend who's really good at math, but sucks in social situations? What about a cousin who's really good at interior design but is an awful driver? If your electrician friend has a long history of giving good electrical advice, both to me and others, then they have a long history of giving good electrical advice. I wouldn't expect that to change because they gave me bad dinner advice. Tiel has started multiple multi-billion dollar industries. He's served on countless boards, and taught business classes at Stanford. His skills in _business_ have been verified by other entrepreneurs, professors and personal history. I know people who'd give their left leg to get _business_ advice from him. He's also known to be a raging asshole. Not just in voting for Trump, but pretty much everything else. There's his personal vendetta against Gawker, and how he throws his money around to keep surfers from walking on his beach. I wouldn't want to grab a beer with the guy, but that doesn't affect his area of expertise."
},
{
"docid": "13621",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad and I must say, found a lot of value in it. And I like to think I have a very good understanding of finance - both personal and corporate. Econ major, have worked at several major brokerages dispensing financial advice for a living, including at my current employer. But I do remember, back in 2005, when I read Kiyosaki's book, signing up to be contacted by a \"\"Rich Dad Coach\"\" - or something like that. Basically, some guy at the Rich Dad company who would be a financial mentor or sorts. Long story short, the Rich Dad Coach asked for my credit score, which was high, and proceeded to recommend that I max out my credit to buy a house to flip in \"\"1-2 months.\"\" Now, it's true that it could have worked. But was it good advice? Fucking hell no it wasn't. And I think he wanted 5k to coach me through the process. I could have made money doing it, even with paying him 5k, but SPECULATING by taking out personal lines of credit is not consistent with anything in the Rich Dad book. Showed me right there that while the book's advice may be good, that organization was just out to make a buck at the readers' expense.\""
},
{
"docid": "537280",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage. I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed."
},
{
"docid": "319159",
"title": "",
"text": "Ultimately the bank will have first call on the house and you will be the only one on the hook directly to the bank if you don't make the mortgage payments. There's nothing you can do to avoid that if you can't get a joint mortgage. What you could do is make a side agreement that your girlfriend would be entitled to half the equity in the house, and would be required to make half the payments (via you). You could perhaps also add that she would be part responsible for helping you clear any arrears. But in the end it'd just be a deal between you and her. She wouldn't have any direct rights over the house and she wouldn't be at risk of the bank pursuing her if you don't pay the mortgage. You'd probably also need legal advice to make it watertight, but you could also not worry about that too much and just write it all down as formally as possible. It really depends if you're just trying to improve your feelings about the process or whether you really want something that you could both rely on in the event of a later split. I don't think getting married would make any make any real difference day-to-day. In law, with rare exceptions, the finances of spouses are independent from each other. However in the longer term, being married would mean your now-wife would have a stronger legal claim on half the equity in the house in the event of you splitting up."
},
{
"docid": "95321",
"title": "",
"text": "The other answers have offered some great advice, but here is an alternative that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm assuming that you have an adequately-sized emergency fund in savings, and that your cars are your only non-mortgage debt. Since you still have car debt, you probably don't have anything saved for buying a new car when your current cars are at the end-of-life. Consider paying off your car loans early, then begin saving for your next car. Having cash in the bank for a car is very freeing, and it changes your mindset when it comes time to purchase a car, as it is easy to waste a lot of money on something that depreciates rapidly when you aren't paying for it immediately. This approach might be counterintuitive if your car loan interest rate is less than your mortgage rate, but you will probably need another car before you need another house, and paying cash for a car is worth doing."
},
{
"docid": "385658",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This answer assumes (based partly on your commants and some simplifying assumptions) As I see it you have a few options. Get a mortgage to buy your sister out. This avoids any ongoing involvement of your sister which may or may not be a good thing. It means you will be paying interest to a bank (or similar financial institution). Make an arrangement to buy the house in installments, possiblly in combination with some kind of rent. Likely to be a complex option to set up. Buy the house using a loan from your sister. potentially agree a \"\"private mortgage\"\" to protect your sister in the event you fail to pay. If interest is paid then it is likely to attract tax. Simply pay your sister rent, let her keep ownership of her half of the house either forever or until you have saved up the cash to buy her out. Rent is likely to attract tax. Whatever option you go with I would reccomend you get proffesional advice on any local legal/tax issues and drawing up the contracts. If you do go into an arrangement that keeps your sister involved make sure you discuss the what-ifs upfront and build them into your agreement. If you can't/won't pay what happens? can she insist that the house is sold and the proceeds split in some way? can she rent our her half of the house to someone else?\""
},
{
"docid": "141738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\""
},
{
"docid": "453624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\""
},
{
"docid": "138113",
"title": "",
"text": "Idk if I would ask on reddit, personal finance will tell you the only way is joint bank accounts and relationship advice will tell you to break up. Personally I will always want my own bank account, with a joint account for a mortgage or utilities. I think it depends on if you are both financially savvy, if one of you aren't you might want to have a joint account to keep an eye on spending. I think this site give you a good pro/con: https://www.thebalance.com/should-you-have-joint-or-separate-bank-accounts-1289664"
}
] |
6252 | Is this mortgage advice good, or is it hooey? | [
{
"docid": "160932",
"title": "",
"text": "Sounds like baloney to me. HELOCs are variable rate, so you are paying down the principal of a fixed rate loan with a variable rate loan. If you want to pay the mortgage down faster, make two half payments per month, and/or add a little extra to each payment (make sure with the bank that any extra will automatically go to principal)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "493982",
"title": "",
"text": "You are doing great! Congratulations. Check out the Dave Ramsey Baby Steps. He has advice for exactly your situation. The book Financial Peace covers the topic in detail. You have an Emergency Fund which is Step 3. Step 4 is investing 15% for retirement in 401k and similar. Step 5 is funding college if you have children. In Step 6, he advises putting any extra money towards the principle on your home. Owning your own home outright is a better goal than investing the money at a higher interest versus your mortgage interest rate. After your are completely debt free, then you can invest and give generously which is Step 7. Answering your question, push your emergency fund to 6 months, bump your retirement saving to 15% and put any extra money to your mortgage."
},
{
"docid": "590999",
"title": "",
"text": "> When that guy says you can go to 30A on a fuse, how do you feel about his opinion as an electrician? > Still say that non-electrician decisions have zero bearing on how you feel about his abilities as an electrician? Do you have a friend who's really good at math, but sucks in social situations? What about a cousin who's really good at interior design but is an awful driver? If your electrician friend has a long history of giving good electrical advice, both to me and others, then they have a long history of giving good electrical advice. I wouldn't expect that to change because they gave me bad dinner advice. Tiel has started multiple multi-billion dollar industries. He's served on countless boards, and taught business classes at Stanford. His skills in _business_ have been verified by other entrepreneurs, professors and personal history. I know people who'd give their left leg to get _business_ advice from him. He's also known to be a raging asshole. Not just in voting for Trump, but pretty much everything else. There's his personal vendetta against Gawker, and how he throws his money around to keep surfers from walking on his beach. I wouldn't want to grab a beer with the guy, but that doesn't affect his area of expertise."
},
{
"docid": "443852",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: NO. Do NOT buy a house. Houses are a \"\"luxury\"\" good (see Why is a house not an investment?). Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment. Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them. Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional. I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts. Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible. Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less. Your kids do not need separate bedrooms. Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority. You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "4739",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some pros and cons to renting vs buying: Some advantages of buying: When you rent, the money you pay is gone. When you buy, assuming you don't have the cash to buy outright but get a mortgage, some of the payment goes to interest, but you are building equity. Ultimately you pay off the mortgage and you can then live rent-free. When you buy, you can alter your home to your liking. You can paint in the colors you like, put in the carpet or flooring you like, heck, tear down walls and alter the floor plan (subject to building codes and safety consideration, of course). If you rent, you are usually sharply limited in what alterations you can make. In the U.S., mortgage interest is tax deductible. Rent is not. Property taxes are deductible from your federal income tax. So if you have, say, $1000 mortgage vs $1000 rent, the mortgage is actually cheaper. Advantages of renting: There are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying a house. You have to pay a realtor's commission, various legal fees, usually \"\"loan origination fees\"\" to the bank, etc. Plus the way mortgages are designed, your total payment is the same throughout the life of the loan. But for the first payment you owe interest on the total balance of the loan, while the last payment you only owe interest on a small amount. So early payments are mostly interest. This leads to the conventional advice that you should not buy unless you plan to live in the house for some reasonably long period of time, exact amount varying with whose giving the advice, but I think 3 to 5 years is common. One mitigating factor: Bear in mind that if you buy a house, and then after 2 years sell it, and you discover that the sale price minus purchase price minus closing costs ends up a net minus, say, $20,000, it's not entirely fair to say \"\"zounds! I lost $20,000 by buying\"\". If you had not bought this house, presumably you would have been renting. So the fair comparison is, mortgage payments plus losses on the resale compared to likely rental payments for the same period.\""
},
{
"docid": "13621",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad and I must say, found a lot of value in it. And I like to think I have a very good understanding of finance - both personal and corporate. Econ major, have worked at several major brokerages dispensing financial advice for a living, including at my current employer. But I do remember, back in 2005, when I read Kiyosaki's book, signing up to be contacted by a \"\"Rich Dad Coach\"\" - or something like that. Basically, some guy at the Rich Dad company who would be a financial mentor or sorts. Long story short, the Rich Dad Coach asked for my credit score, which was high, and proceeded to recommend that I max out my credit to buy a house to flip in \"\"1-2 months.\"\" Now, it's true that it could have worked. But was it good advice? Fucking hell no it wasn't. And I think he wanted 5k to coach me through the process. I could have made money doing it, even with paying him 5k, but SPECULATING by taking out personal lines of credit is not consistent with anything in the Rich Dad book. Showed me right there that while the book's advice may be good, that organization was just out to make a buck at the readers' expense.\""
},
{
"docid": "326094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""
},
{
"docid": "95321",
"title": "",
"text": "The other answers have offered some great advice, but here is an alternative that hasn't been mentioned yet. I'm assuming that you have an adequately-sized emergency fund in savings, and that your cars are your only non-mortgage debt. Since you still have car debt, you probably don't have anything saved for buying a new car when your current cars are at the end-of-life. Consider paying off your car loans early, then begin saving for your next car. Having cash in the bank for a car is very freeing, and it changes your mindset when it comes time to purchase a car, as it is easy to waste a lot of money on something that depreciates rapidly when you aren't paying for it immediately. This approach might be counterintuitive if your car loan interest rate is less than your mortgage rate, but you will probably need another car before you need another house, and paying cash for a car is worth doing."
},
{
"docid": "339332",
"title": "",
"text": "The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull."
},
{
"docid": "54322",
"title": "",
"text": "First, you need to be aware that the credit score reported by Mint is Equifax Credit Score. Equifax Credit Score, like FICO, Vantagescore, and others, is based on a proprietary formula that is not publicly available. Every score is calculated with a different formula, and can vary from each other widely. Lenders almost exclusively only use FICO scores, so the score number you have is likely different than the score lenders will use. Second, understand that the advice you see from places like Mint and Credit Karma will almost always tell you that you don't have enough credit card accounts. The reason for this is that they make their money by referring customers to credit card applications. They have a financial interest in telling you that you need more credit cards. Finally, realize that credit score is just a number, and is only useful for a limited number of things. Higher is better to a point, and after that, you get no benefit from increasing your score. My advice to you is this: Don't stress out about your credit score, especially a free score reported by Credit Karma or Mint. If you really have a desire to find out your score, you can pay FICO to get your actual score, but it's not cheap. You can also sometimes get your FICO score by applying for a loan and asking the lender. I last saw my FICO scores (there were three, one from each credit bureau) when I applied for a mortgage a couple of years ago, and the mortgage rep gave them to me for free. But honestly, knowing your score doesn't do much for you, as the best way to increase it is to simply make your payments on time and wait. Don't give in to bad conventional advice from places that are funded by the financial services industry. The thing that makes your credit score go up is a long history of paying your bills on time. Despite what you commonly read about credit scores, I'm not convinced that you can radically boost your scores by having lots of open credit card accounts. At the time I applied for my last mortgage, I only had 2 open credit cards (still true), and the oldest open account was about 1.5 years old. The average of my 3 scores was just over 800. But I've been paying my bills on time for at least 20 years now. Only get credit cards that you actually want, and close the ones you don't want."
},
{
"docid": "536136",
"title": "",
"text": "I've never heard of portable mortgages in the US. If you can't afford two mortgages, you will have to sell the first house to pay off its mortgage before you can buy the 2nd house. This is done all the time in the US. You can put your current house on the market (advertise it for sale) then arrange for a long closing while you arrange to buy a new house. Also, you can make an offer on a new house and include a contingency clause that you must sell your current house first. Good escrow companies are very good at managing cascading transactions like this."
},
{
"docid": "548619",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not sure why the downvote - seems like a fair question to me. Who owns a house and in what proportions can be totally separate from who is named on the mortgage. There are two ways to do this - one way would be for you loan them the money first under a separate contract, which you should have a solicitor draw up; then they buy the house themselves. The contract would state the terms for repayment of the loan, which could be e.g. no repayment due until the sale of the house at which point the original amount is returned plus interest equivalent to the growth in value of the house between purchase and sale (or whatever). You'd need to be clear about what happened if the house lost value or they ended up in a negative equity situation. The other option is where you are directly a party to the purchase of the house and are named as part owners on the deeds. Again the solicitor who is handling the house purchase for them would help with the paperwork. In either case you would need to clear this arrangement with the mortgage company to make sure they were OK with it. To answer your specific questions in order: - Yes, they would still be eligible for the Help To Buy ISAs (assuming that is what you are referring to) even though you would not be - I'm not sure what \"\"penalty\"\" you are referring to. You'd have to pay tax on any income or capital gain you made from the deal. - No-one can say whether this is a good deal for you without knowing a great deal more about your individual circumstances (and even then, any such advice you would get on here is worth as much as you pay for it.... if in doubt, consult an IFA.)\""
},
{
"docid": "453624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\""
},
{
"docid": "100683",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For the vast majority, \"\"buying\"\" a house via a mortgage is not an investment. I use quotes around buying because from a technical perspective you don't own anything until you've paid it off; this is often an important point that people forget. It's highly unlikely you'll make more on it than the amount you put into it (interest, repairs, etc). Even with relatively low interest rates. The people who successfully invest in homes are those that use actual cash (not borrowed) to buy a home at well below market value. They then clean it up and make enough repairs to make it marketable and sell it shortly there after. Sometimes these people get hosed if the housing market tumbles to the point that the home is now worth less than the amount they put into it. This is especially problematic if they used bank loans to get the process going. They were actually the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped several years ago. Well, them and the people who bought on interest only loans or had balloon payments. Whereas the people who use a mortgage are essentially treating it like a bank account with a negative interest rate. For example, $180k loan on a 30 yr fixed at 4% will mean a total payout of around $310k, excluding normal repairs like roofs, carpet, etc. Due to how mortgage's work, most of the interest is collected during the first half of the loan period. So selling it within 2 to 5 years is usually problematic unless the local housing market has really skyrocketed. Housing markets move up and down all the time due to a hundred different things completely out of your control. It might be a regional depression, weather events, failed large businesses, failed city/local governments, etc. It could go up because businesses moved in, a new highway is built, state/local taxes decline, etc. My point is, homes are not long term investments. They can be short term ones, but only in limited circumstances and there is a high degree of risk involved. So don't let that be a driving point of your decision. Instead you need to focus on other factors. Such as: what is really going on with the house you are currently in? Why would they lose it? Can you help out, and, should you help out? If things are precarious, it might make more sense to sell that home now and everyone move into separate locations, possibly different rentals or apartments. If they are foreclosed on then they will be in a world of financial hurt for a long time. If we ignore your parents situation, then one piece of advice I would give you is this: Rent the cheapest apartment you can find that is still a \"\"safe\"\" place to live in. Put every dollar you can into some type of savings/investment that will actually grow. Stay there for 5+ years, then go pay cash for a nice home. Making $75k a year while single means that you don't need much to live on. In other words, live extremely cheap now so you can enjoy a fantastic living experience later that is free from financial fear. You should be able to put $30k+ per year aside going this route. edit: A bit of support data for those that somehow think buying a home on a mortgage is somehow a good investment: Robert Shiller, who won a Nobel prize in economics and who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble, has shown that a house is not a good investment. Why? First, home prices (adjusted for inflation) have been virtually unchanged for the past 100 years. (link 1, link 2) Second, after you add in the costs of maintenance alone then those costs plus what you've paid for the home will exceed what you get out of it. Adding in the cost of a mortgage could easily double or even triple the price you paid which makes things even worse. Maintenance costs include things like a new roof, carpet/flooring, water heater, appliances, etc. Yes, a home might cost you $100k and you might sell it for $200k after 15 years. However during that time you'll likely replace the roof ($10k to $20k), replace appliances ($2k to $5k), water heater ($1k), carpet/flooring ($5k to $20k), paint ($3k to $6k), and mortgage related costs (~$60k - assuming 30 yr fixed @4%). So your \"\"costs\"\" are between $180k and $200k just on those items. There are many more that could easily escalate the costs further. Like a fence ($5k+), air conditioner ($5k+), windows, etc. The above is assuming the home actually appreciates in value faster than inflation: which they historically haven't over the long term. So you have to consider all of the costs ultimately paid to purchase and maintain the home vs the costs of renting during the same time period. Point is: do your research and be realistic about it. Buying a home is a huge financial risk.\""
},
{
"docid": "570611",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think it's great that you want to contribute. Course Instructor You may want to take a look at becoming an instructor for a course like Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University. These are commonly offered through churches and other community venues for a fee. This may be a good fit if you want to focus on basic financial literacy, setting up and sticking to a budget, and getting their financial \"\"house\"\" in order. It may not be a good fit if you don't want to teach an existing curriculum, or if you find the tenets of the course too unpalatable. A significant number of the people in Dave's audience are close to or in the middle of a financial meltdown, and so his advice includes controversial ideas such as avoiding credit altogether, often because that's how they got into their current mess. Counselor If you want to run your own show, I know of several people who have built their own practice that is run along the lines of a counselor charging hourly rates, and they work with couples who are having money problems. Building a reputation and a network of referring counselors and professionals is key here, and definitely seems like it would require a full-time commitment. I would avoid \"\"credit counseling\"\" and the like. Most of these organizations are focused on restructuring credit card debt, not spending signficant time on behavioral change. You don't need a series 7, 63, 65 etc. or even a CFA. I've previously acquired a number of these and can confirm that they are investment credentials that are intended to help you get a job and/or get more business as a broker or conventional financial planner, i.e. salesperson of securities. The licensure process is necessary to protect consumers from advice that serves the investment sales force but is bad for the consumer, and because you must be licensed to provide investment advice. There is a class of fee-only financial planners, but they primarily deal with complex issues that allow them to make money, and often give away basic personal finance advice for free in the form of articles, podcasts, etc. Charity For part-time or free work, in my area there are also several charity organizations that help people do their taxes and provide basic budgeting and personal finance instruction, but this is very localized and may vary quite a bit depending on where you live. However, if there are none near you, you can always start one! Journalism If you have an interest in writing, there are also people who work as journalists and write columns, books, or newsletters, and it is much easier now to publish and build a network online, either on your own, through a blog or contributing to a website. Speaker at Community events There are also many opportunities to speak to a specific community such as a church or social organization. For example, where I live there are local organizations for Spanish speaking, Polish speaking, elderly, young professional, young mother and retiree groups for example, all of who might be interested in your advice on issues that specifically address their needs. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "289231",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "270844",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did \"\"not amount to much\"\" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail. Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way.\""
},
{
"docid": "445693",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Sending your money off to do the heavy lifting is just a stylish way to say \"\"investing\"\". He is saying hold back 6 months of living expenses and don't invest it. Keep it in cash or some cash-like investment (genuinely safe and liquid). It's good basic solid advice you'll also get from Dave Ramsey, Suze Orman and any financial advisor worth a darn. While this is good advice, that does not mean all of his advice is good. A classic con-man trick is to tell you three things you know are true, mixed with a lie they want you to believe. They want you to think \"\"I know 3/4 are true so the fourth probably is too.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "290691",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\""
},
{
"docid": "219042",
"title": "",
"text": "It is a decent time to purchase real estate despite dsquid's opinion. I feel dsquid is falling for the old economic psychology of what ever direction its going it will continuing in that direction, which is a bad mentality for any investing (up or down). This may not be the bottom, and there is some sign that another dip is coming with in a year or two. But if you purchase now, and focus on a few key factors you may end up on the upside of the swing. First and foremost location matters more then value of the property. When the pent up demand is eventually released (after we get employment moving in the right direction) you will see a land grab. The first and highest valued places are those with nice neighborhoods and good schools as the young families (economically unburdened) start making homes. Second pay attention to valuation in so much as your burden. This means consider taxes and mortgage and terms of mortgage (stay away from variable or balloon rates). When thing go up the interest rates will lead the way. In this time of uncertainty you should make sure you can cover your mortgage payment with ease. Put plenty down (20% being the recommended to avoid mortgage insurance and long term costs) and shoot low on price. If you're handy you may even consider buying something that needs minor work (outdated kitchen or the like). If you shoot lower then your limit, then you'll be comfortable even if things turn sour for you. Ultimately all this hinges on what you want to do with the property. Its a wise time to buy homes today where you will be able to rent them out tomorrow. But the important thing is aim in the middle instead of at your limit (450 is definitely your limit). Remember banks will always tell you that you're able to afford twice as much as you actually should. And keep in mind, no matter how new or nice the home, it will need work at some point and that costs. So you should have that in mind when you consider savings. Based on your information I wouldnt shoot higher then 250-300k. I have friends who make your salary in dividends plus two incomes and they are comfortable in their home at its 250 price. They are able to afford repairs and upgrade regularly and arent threatened by potential tax hikes (though they gripe of course). The one good piece of advice from dsquid IMHO is that you should be ready for the environment to change. Higher interests rates will weigh on your comfort as much as CPI and increased taxes will so plan for them to be much higher and you'll be ahead of the game."
}
] |
6252 | Is this mortgage advice good, or is it hooey? | [
{
"docid": "293624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Jack \"\"The Mortgage Professor\"\" Guttentag provides a thorough analysis of a similar-sounding system: In addition, I had the feeling that customers of Mortgage Relief should have gotten a spreadsheet for their $45, and wondered why they hadn’t? So I set out to develop a spreadsheet of my own that could quantify the benefits – if there were any. The major question I wanted the spreadsheet to answer was, how large is the benefit of using the Mortgage Relief scheme if you don’t have any surplus income but only just enough to make the scheduled payment? This is the critical question because we know that if you use surplus income to make extra payments to principal, you pay down the mortgage more quickly. This is so whether you apply the income directly to the mortgage, as most borrowers do, or whether you follow the Mortgage Relief procedure where you use a credit line to pay down the mortgage and current income to pay down the credit line. I spent much of my air time between Philadelphia and San Francisco on this project, and finally gave it up. Once I removed surplus income from the equation, I could not find a way to make the Mortgage Relief scheme work. You may also want to read related articles by Guttentag:\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "457395",
"title": "",
"text": "They've asked you, so your advice is welcome. That's your main concern, really. I'd also ask them how much, and what kind of advice. Do they want you to point them to good websites? On what subjects? Or do they want more personal advice and have you to look over their bank accounts and credit card statements, provide accountability, etc.? Treat them the same way you'd want to be treated if you asked for help on something that you were weak on."
},
{
"docid": "154181",
"title": "",
"text": "Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner."
},
{
"docid": "326094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""
},
{
"docid": "315017",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on the bank - In some cases(mine included :) ) the bank allowed for this but Emma had to sign on a document waiving the rights for the house in case the bank needs to liquidate assets in to recover their mortgage in case of delays or non-payment of dues in time. This had to be signed after taking independent legal advice from a legal adviser."
},
{
"docid": "141738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\""
},
{
"docid": "510373",
"title": "",
"text": "When getting a mortgage it always depends on the bank and each bank may be more or less strict. With that being said there are rules and general guidelines which can help you understand how you fit in the world of mortgage approvals. If you can provide the same paper work as an employee of your company that you would normally provide from any other company then a bank may just accept that alone. However to me it seems like you will be looking at a new variation of what was known as a Self-certification mortgage A self-certification mortgage is basically a mortgage for those who cannot prove their income. As a result of the housing collapse, the rules on a traditional self-cert mortgages have changed. As someone who is self employed, it is more difficult today to get a mortgage but is still possible. This article provides some good information: Can the self employed still get a mortgage? I advise doing some research on this topic and speaking with a professional mortgage broker. Some Resources: Compare Self Cert Mortgages How to beat the mortgage famine in 2012 Can the self employed still get a mortgage?"
},
{
"docid": "25315",
"title": "",
"text": "Plus, there's the feeling my parents want me to have a house in case we can't save the one we (my mom and brothers) all live in. First, you should not be forced to buy a home because your parents are telling you to. You should have your own life. Period. That said, while you are doing well from a salary perspective, your savings are somewhat borderline for a purchase if you ask me. Meaning your savings would essentially be the full downpayment & then your whole paycheck basically becomes payments on the mortgage. Not a good situation to be in. My advice would be that if you can invest in something smaller—like a small apartment for yourself—that is what you should purchase. That would allow you to invest in something but not be completely financially drained by the prospect. And then in a few years, you can sell that apartment & move onto something else. Perhaps a house at that stage? But right now, a full home purchase would be a fairly massive risk."
},
{
"docid": "78518",
"title": "",
"text": "There are several factors that you need to consider: If you have already decided on the house. Did you prequalify for the mortgage loan - If so, did you lock in the rate. If you have not already done than your research is still valid. Consider two calculators first - Affordability + Mortgage calculator Advice : If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do, Lesser monthly mortgage payment, you can save approx 400 $ per month, the above calculator will give you an exact idea. If you can afford go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. Do not assume the average ROI will + 8-10%. It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand. In terms of Income your interest payment is Tax deductible at the end of the year."
},
{
"docid": "537280",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage. I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed."
},
{
"docid": "29271",
"title": "",
"text": "Just general advice but you should pay off your credit cards and car loans before buying a house. Or you may be able to add some extra on to the mortgage to pay off your credit card and car debt right away. Credit card interest rates can be ten times the interest rates on mortgages and car loans are not far behind. The sooner you get them paid off completely the sooner you will have enough money for mortgage payments."
},
{
"docid": "482932",
"title": "",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)"
},
{
"docid": "289231",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "226053",
"title": "",
"text": "Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation."
},
{
"docid": "295688",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are actually a few questions you are asking here. I will try and address each individually. Down Payment What you put down can't really be quantified in a dollar amount here. $5k-$10k means nothing. If the house costs $20k then you're putting 50% down. What is relevant is the percent of the purchase price you're putting down. That being said, if you go to purchase a property as an investment property (something you wont be moving into) then you are much more likely to be putting a down payment much closer to 20-25% of the purchase price. However, if you are capable of living in the property for a year (usually the limitation on federal loans) then you can pay much less. Around 3.5% has been my experience. The Process Your plan is sound but I would HIGHLY suggest looking into what it means to be a landlord. This is not a decision to be taken lightly. You need to know the tenant landlord laws in your city AND state. You need to call a tax consultant and speak to them about what you will be charging for rent, and how much you should withhold for taxes. You also should talk to them about what write offs are available for rental properties. \"\"Breaking Even\"\" with rent and a mortgage can also mean loss when tax time comes if you don't account for repairs made. Financing Your first rental property is the hardest to get going (if you don't have experience as a landlord). Most lenders will allow you to use the potential income of a property to qualify for a loan once you have established yourself as a landlord. Prior to that though you need to have enough income to afford the mortgage on your own. So, what that means is that qualifying for a loan is highly related to your debt to income ratio. If your properties are self sustaining and you still work 40 hours a week then your ability to qualify in the future shouldn't be all that impacted. If anything it shows that you are a responsible credit manager. Conclusion I can't stress enough to do YOUR OWN research. Don't go off of what your friends are telling you. People exaggerate to make them seem like they are higher on the socioeconomic ladder then they really are. They also might have chicken little syndrome and try to discourage you from making a really great choice. I run into this all the time. People feel like they can't do something or they're to afraid so you shouldn't be able to either. If you need advice go to a professional or read a book. Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "77153",
"title": "",
"text": "Common investment advice recommends paying off all debt before you invest. This is certainly not debated when the debt is credit card debt or other high interest debt. Some would argue this doesn't necessarily apply to school debt or mortgage debt, however its not clear what to suggest. Since any investment you make is unknown whether you will win or lose money, and every debt you have is guaranteed to be a loss via interest, its almost always a good idea to pay off all of your debt first."
},
{
"docid": "456783",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \"\"streamline\"\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \"\"renegotiating the rate\"\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\""
},
{
"docid": "476068",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I doubt you will get an answer equal to \"\"You can't save when you have debt\"\". Because most mortgages are for decades, very few people would be able to save for retirement if they had to wait to be mortgage free. The difficulty in saving occurs when the interest rate is very high (18% or more) and the interest is not deductible. Such as with credit cards. The minimum payment for your mortgage is 30% of your income. If that doesn't include taxes and homeowners insurance in the 30%, then for the United States that would be considered too large. While the general plan to pay down the mortgage is a good idea, make sure that you are able to handle the minimum payments before starting to increase the payments. Try the minimum for a year or two before getting aggressive The calculation is based on the interest rate of the mortgage, the interest rate of the savings account, and the potential tax deduction of the mortgage and the tax rate on the earned interest. Putting extra money into a mortgage, but missing out on matching retirement money would also have to be figured into the calculation. Make sure you do save for retirement , kids education, and emergencies. Unless your country has a complex system where the money can flow in and out of the mortgage, then once you put extra money into the mortgage you can't get it back when the car dies. The nice thing about putting extra money into a mortgage is that you can do it either in an organized way, or only when you feel comfortable. So it is not urgent for you to commit to a plan immediately. One thing to avoid is a plan that charges you a fee to add extra money, or charges a fee to switch to a bi-weekly mortgage. While your ideas is good, these plans should never cost any money to start, and may be a scam if a 3rd party gets between you and the lender.\""
},
{
"docid": "115111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\""
},
{
"docid": "367103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depending on where you live in the UK, buying a house sooner might be a better option. I would echo the advice about putting some money away into a \"\"rainy day\"\" fund etc. above but I know that in my area house prices are going up by around 7% per year. I bought a house two years ago and I'm paying 4% interest on my mortgage so I'm effectively making money by owning my house. Given that you want to buy a house soonish, if your money sits in an account somewhere making no interest, you're effectively losing 7% of your cash each year by not keeping up with house prices, meaning you'll be able to afford a smaller house with the same money. Do bear in mind though that buying a house costs around £4k in lawyers fees, surveys, mortgage setup fees etc. and selling a house can be more since estate agents will take a % of the sale cost. If you live somewhere where house prices are not increasing as quickly then this will not be as good an option than if you live in e.g. London where house prices are currently skyrocketing. If you don't want to live in the house, you may be able to do a buy-to-let as an investment. Generally the rent will cover the mortgage payments and probably a letting agent/property management company's fees, so while you won't see any actual net income, the people renting will be paying the mortgage off and you'll be building equity on the home. It's not entirely without risk though as tenants can trash homes etc.\""
}
] |
6252 | Is this mortgage advice good, or is it hooey? | [
{
"docid": "233294",
"title": "",
"text": "That makes no sense at all. They try to compare and that's exactly the same as comparing apples versus oranges. Mortgage is long-term loan, so for the first many years the huge part of the payment will go to repaying interest, so that ratio 1 will indeed be something like 20% or more despite the fact that the interest rate on the mortgage is much lower - something around 6%. HELOC will have the interest rate of 6%, but it will have the same structure so that you have equal payments, so if you compute that ratio 1 it will be very close to that of the mortgage. The bottom line is - if HELOCs were that great noone would apply for mortgages. You should stick to making extra payments towards the principal on the mortgage."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "453624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\""
},
{
"docid": "491682",
"title": "",
"text": "First, some general advice that I think you should consider A good rule of thumb on home buying is to wait to buy until you expect to live in the same place for at least 5 years. This period of time is meant to reduce the impact of closing costs, which can be 1-5% of your total buying & selling price. If you bought and sold in the same year, for example, then you might need to pay over 5% of the value of your home to realtors & lawyers! This means that for many people, it is unwise to buy a home expecting it to be your 'starter' home, if you already are thinking about what your next (presumably bigger) home will look like. If you buy a townhouse expecting to sell it in 3 years to buy a house, you are partially gambling on the chance that increases in your townhome's value will offset the closing costs & mortgage interest paid. Increases in home value are not a sure thing. In many areas, the total costs of home ownership are about equivalent to the total costs of renting, when you factor in maintenance. I notice you don't even mention renting as an option - make sure you at least consider it, before deciding to buy! Also, don't buy a house expecting your life situation to 'make up the difference' in your budget. If you're expecting your girlfriend to move in with you in a year, that implies that you aren't living together now, and maybe haven't talked about it. Even if she says now that she would move in within a year, there's no guarantee that things work out that way. Taking on a mortgage is a commitment that you need to take on yourself; no one else will be liable for the payments. As for whether a townhouse or a detached house helps you meet your needs better, don't get caught up in terminology. There are few differences between houses & townhomes that are universal. Stereotypically townhomes are cheaper, smaller, noisier, and have condo associations with monthly fees to pay for maintenance on joint property. But that is something that differs on a case-by-case basis. Don't get tricked into buying a 1,100 sq ft house with a restrictive HOA, instead of a 1,400 sq ft free-hold townhouse, just because townhouses have a certain reputation. The only true difference between a house and a townhouse is that 1 or both of your walls are shared with a neighbor. Everything else is flexible."
},
{
"docid": "326094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""
},
{
"docid": "315017",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on the bank - In some cases(mine included :) ) the bank allowed for this but Emma had to sign on a document waiving the rights for the house in case the bank needs to liquidate assets in to recover their mortgage in case of delays or non-payment of dues in time. This had to be signed after taking independent legal advice from a legal adviser."
},
{
"docid": "112271",
"title": "",
"text": "I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest. In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances. You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property. Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced. The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2. I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future. I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification. Don't put all of your money into one basket. This includes real estate. Like any other investment, real estate goes down too. In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year. While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio."
},
{
"docid": "77153",
"title": "",
"text": "Common investment advice recommends paying off all debt before you invest. This is certainly not debated when the debt is credit card debt or other high interest debt. Some would argue this doesn't necessarily apply to school debt or mortgage debt, however its not clear what to suggest. Since any investment you make is unknown whether you will win or lose money, and every debt you have is guaranteed to be a loss via interest, its almost always a good idea to pay off all of your debt first."
},
{
"docid": "536136",
"title": "",
"text": "I've never heard of portable mortgages in the US. If you can't afford two mortgages, you will have to sell the first house to pay off its mortgage before you can buy the 2nd house. This is done all the time in the US. You can put your current house on the market (advertise it for sale) then arrange for a long closing while you arrange to buy a new house. Also, you can make an offer on a new house and include a contingency clause that you must sell your current house first. Good escrow companies are very good at managing cascading transactions like this."
},
{
"docid": "456783",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \"\"streamline\"\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \"\"renegotiating the rate\"\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\""
},
{
"docid": "344206",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a firm believer in the idea of limiting debt as much as possible. I would not recommend borrowing money for anything other than a reasonably sized mortgage. As a result, my recommendations are going to be geared toward that goal. The top priorities for me, then, would be to make sure, first, that we don't have to go further into debt, and second, that we eliminate the debt that we already have as soon as possible. Here is how I would rate your list: A small emergency fund, perhaps $1000 USD, is going to ensure that, while you are funding other things, you don't end up so cash poor that, if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you are forced to add to your credit card debt. Make this small fund your top priority, and it shouldn't take much more than a month or two to do it. Getting out of debt is important, but if your employer hands out free money, you have to take it. It is just too good of a deal. Get rid of this debt as fast as possible. When you are done, you'll have more income available to you than you've ever had before. Now that you have just gotten done eliminating your debt as fast as possible, don't stop there. Take the income you had been throwing at your debt, and build up your emergency fund to a few months' worth of your expenses. Finishing this fund up will enable you to withstand a small crisis without borrowing anything. You are now in a very strong position financially, and can confidently invest. Deciding which type of retirement account is best for you depends on the details of your situation. Once you are contributing a healthy amount to your retirement funds, you may want to consider paying off your mortgage early. As I said before, I recommend getting down to the last step as quickly as possible. Depending on how much debt you actually have, if you sacrifice for a year or two you could be debt free and in a position to keep all of your investment gains. If you take your time paying off debt, like many people do, you could find yourself 10 years from now still making payments on your loans, still making car payments, and still needlessly sending interest to the banks, eating away at the gains you are making in your investments. If you aren't committed to eliminating your debt quickly, and plan on having payments for a long time, then skip this advice and put retirement savings at the top."
},
{
"docid": "423229",
"title": "",
"text": "It looks like the advice the rep is giving is based primarily on the sunk cost fallacy; advice based on a fallacy is poor advice. Bob has recognised this trap and is explicitly avoiding it. It is possible that the advice that the rep is trying to give is that Fund #1 is presently undervalued but, if so, that is a good investment irrespective if Bob has lost money there before or even if he has ever had funds in it."
},
{
"docid": "25315",
"title": "",
"text": "Plus, there's the feeling my parents want me to have a house in case we can't save the one we (my mom and brothers) all live in. First, you should not be forced to buy a home because your parents are telling you to. You should have your own life. Period. That said, while you are doing well from a salary perspective, your savings are somewhat borderline for a purchase if you ask me. Meaning your savings would essentially be the full downpayment & then your whole paycheck basically becomes payments on the mortgage. Not a good situation to be in. My advice would be that if you can invest in something smaller—like a small apartment for yourself—that is what you should purchase. That would allow you to invest in something but not be completely financially drained by the prospect. And then in a few years, you can sell that apartment & move onto something else. Perhaps a house at that stage? But right now, a full home purchase would be a fairly massive risk."
},
{
"docid": "320675",
"title": "",
"text": "You should never take advice from someone else in relation to a question like this. Who would you blame if things go wrong and you lose money or make less than your savings account. For this reason I will give you the same answer I gave to one of your previous similar questions: If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first. Don't put any money down unless you know what your potential risks are and have a risk management strategy in place, especially if it is from advice provided by someone else. The first rule before starting any new investment is to understand what your potential risks are and have a plane to manage and reduce those risks."
},
{
"docid": "495089",
"title": "",
"text": "The best analysis I know of Kiyosaki and his advice somes from a genuine property expert who gives plenty of good advice. If you are really interested then check out [John T Reed on Robert T Kiyosaki](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html)."
},
{
"docid": "101103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As a legal contract, a mortgage is a form of secured debt. In the case of a mortgage, the debt is secured using the property asset as collateral. So \"\"no\"\", there is no such thing as a mortgage contract without a property to act as collateral. Is it a good idea? In the current low interest rate environment, people with good income and credit can obtain a creditline from their bank at a rate comparable to current mortgage rates. However, if you wish to setup a credit line for an amount comparable to a mortgage, then you will need to secure it with some form of collateral.\""
},
{
"docid": "78518",
"title": "",
"text": "There are several factors that you need to consider: If you have already decided on the house. Did you prequalify for the mortgage loan - If so, did you lock in the rate. If you have not already done than your research is still valid. Consider two calculators first - Affordability + Mortgage calculator Advice : If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do, Lesser monthly mortgage payment, you can save approx 400 $ per month, the above calculator will give you an exact idea. If you can afford go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. Do not assume the average ROI will + 8-10%. It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand. In terms of Income your interest payment is Tax deductible at the end of the year."
},
{
"docid": "141738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\""
},
{
"docid": "205906",
"title": "",
"text": "I am a real estate agent. I know you are in Canada, but will let you know that in the US, agents are not to supposed to offer this kind of advice. They can refer you to a bank or mortgage broker, but should not be giving this type of financial advice. That said, it's a HELOC, it would be rare for your bank to be willing to just add to your mortgage at the current low rate. Still, ask the bank holding your loan. Is the second home to rent out or a vacation/summer home for you to live in?"
},
{
"docid": "333219",
"title": "",
"text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\""
},
{
"docid": "339332",
"title": "",
"text": "The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull."
}
] |
6252 | Is this mortgage advice good, or is it hooey? | [
{
"docid": "243268",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This doesn't say the whole story (like the length of the HELOC). if you have 15 years left on a mortgage and \"\"refinance\"\" into a 30 year HELOC then yes, your payments maybe 20% lower, but you add 15 years to pay it off. Just remember that interest occurs daily on what you owe. If you move 100K of debt from 5% mortgage to 6% HELOC you'll be paying more to the banks no matter how you slice it.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "78518",
"title": "",
"text": "There are several factors that you need to consider: If you have already decided on the house. Did you prequalify for the mortgage loan - If so, did you lock in the rate. If you have not already done than your research is still valid. Consider two calculators first - Affordability + Mortgage calculator Advice : If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do, Lesser monthly mortgage payment, you can save approx 400 $ per month, the above calculator will give you an exact idea. If you can afford go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. Do not assume the average ROI will + 8-10%. It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand. In terms of Income your interest payment is Tax deductible at the end of the year."
},
{
"docid": "302315",
"title": "",
"text": "Lots of good advice so far. Here's some meta-advice. Read through everything here twice, and distill out what the big picture ideas are. Learn about what you need to know about them. Pick a strategy and/or long term goals. Work toward them. Get advice from many many places and distill it. This is currently known as crowd-sourcing but I've been doing it all my life. It's very effective. No one will ever care as much about your money as you. Some specific things I haven't seen mentioned (or not mentioned much):"
},
{
"docid": "101103",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As a legal contract, a mortgage is a form of secured debt. In the case of a mortgage, the debt is secured using the property asset as collateral. So \"\"no\"\", there is no such thing as a mortgage contract without a property to act as collateral. Is it a good idea? In the current low interest rate environment, people with good income and credit can obtain a creditline from their bank at a rate comparable to current mortgage rates. However, if you wish to setup a credit line for an amount comparable to a mortgage, then you will need to secure it with some form of collateral.\""
},
{
"docid": "443852",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: NO. Do NOT buy a house. Houses are a \"\"luxury\"\" good (see Why is a house not an investment?). Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment. Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them. Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional. I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts. Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible. Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less. Your kids do not need separate bedrooms. Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority. You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "500261",
"title": "",
"text": "FICO is a financial services company, whose customers are financial services companies. Their products are for the benefit of their customers, not consumers. The purpose of the credit score system is two-fold. First, the credit score is intended to make it easy for lending institutions (FICO's customers) to assess the risk of loans that they make. This is probably based on science, although the FICO studies and even the FICO score formula are proprietary secrets. The second purpose of the credit score is to incentivize consumers into borrowing money. And they have done a great job of that. If you think you might need a loan in the future, perhaps a mortgage or a car loan, you need a credit score. And the only way to get a credit score is to start borrowing money now that you don't need. Yes, someone with a good income and a long history of paying utility bills on time would be a great credit risk for a mortgage. However, that person will have no credit score, and therefore be declared by FICO as a bad credit risk. On the other hand, someone with a low income, who struggles, but succeeds, to make the minimum payment on their credit card, would have a better credit score. The advice offered to the first person is start borrowing money now, even though you don't need it. I'm not anti-credit card. I use a credit card responsibly, paying it off in full every month. I use it for the convenience. I don't worry at all about my credit score, but I've been told it is great. However, there are some people that cannot use a credit card responsibly. The temptation is too great. Perhaps they are like problem gamblers, I don't know. But FICO and the financial services industry have created a system that makes a credit card a necessity in many ways. These are the people that get hurt in the current system."
},
{
"docid": "339332",
"title": "",
"text": "The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull."
},
{
"docid": "138113",
"title": "",
"text": "Idk if I would ask on reddit, personal finance will tell you the only way is joint bank accounts and relationship advice will tell you to break up. Personally I will always want my own bank account, with a joint account for a mortgage or utilities. I think it depends on if you are both financially savvy, if one of you aren't you might want to have a joint account to keep an eye on spending. I think this site give you a good pro/con: https://www.thebalance.com/should-you-have-joint-or-separate-bank-accounts-1289664"
},
{
"docid": "495089",
"title": "",
"text": "The best analysis I know of Kiyosaki and his advice somes from a genuine property expert who gives plenty of good advice. If you are really interested then check out [John T Reed on Robert T Kiyosaki](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html)."
},
{
"docid": "586632",
"title": "",
"text": "Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you."
},
{
"docid": "154181",
"title": "",
"text": "Why won't anyone just answer the original question? The question was not about opportunity cost or flexibility or family expenses. There are no right answers to any of those things and they all depend on individual circumstances. I believe the answer to the question of whether paying off a 30-year mortgage in 15 years would cost the same amount as a 15-year mortgage of the same interest rate is yes but ONLY if you pay it off on the exact same schedule as your supposed 15-year. In reality, the answer is NO for two reasons: the amortization schedule; and the fact that the 30-year will always have a higher interest rate than the 15-year. The way mortgages are amortized, the interest is paid first, essentially. For most people the majority of the monthly payment is interest for the first half of the loan's life. This is good for most people because, in reality, most mortgages only last a couple years after which people refinance or move and for those first couple years the majority of one's housing costs (interest) are tax deductible. It is arguable whether perpetuating this for one's entire life is wise... but that's the reality of most mortgages. So, unless you pay off your 30-year on the exact same amortization schedule of your theoretical 15-year, you will pay more in interest. A common strategy people pursue is paying an extra monthly payment (or more) each year. By the time you get around to chipping away at your principal in that way, you will already have paid a lot more interest than you would have on a 15-year. And, really, if you can afford to substantially pay down principal in the first year or two of your mortgage, you probably should've borrowed less money to begin with. In theory, IF the rates were the same (they're not) and IF you paid the 30 off every month in the EXACT same way as you would've paid a 15 (you won't) you will pay the same amount in the end. You have to decide if the flexibility is worth more to you than the cost savings. For example: a 300k mortgage at 3.5% will have a monthly payment of ~$2150 for a 15-year and ~$1350 for a 30-year, both will start with ~$875/month of that being in interest (gradually declining with time). What I think most people undervalue is the freedom and peace of mind that comes with a paid off or nearly paid off home... and 15 years is a lot more tangible than 30, plus a lot cheaper over all. If you can afford a 15-year mortgage without putting too much stress on your budget, it is definitely the better option for financial security. And be careful of the index fund opportunity cost advice. On average it may be a good idea when you look at the very long run, historically, but a lot of people get less than average returns depending on when they buy and what the market does in the short run. There is no certainty around what returns you will get from the stock market, but if you have a 30-year mortgage there is a lot of certainty around what you will owe every month for the next 30-years. Different mixes of investments make sense for different people, and most people would be wise to get some exposure to the stock market for its returns and liquidity. However, if someone's goal is borrowing more money for their house in order to invest more money in the stock market for their retirement, they would actually be better served in achieving security and independence 15 years sooner."
},
{
"docid": "536136",
"title": "",
"text": "I've never heard of portable mortgages in the US. If you can't afford two mortgages, you will have to sell the first house to pay off its mortgage before you can buy the 2nd house. This is done all the time in the US. You can put your current house on the market (advertise it for sale) then arrange for a long closing while you arrange to buy a new house. Also, you can make an offer on a new house and include a contingency clause that you must sell your current house first. Good escrow companies are very good at managing cascading transactions like this."
},
{
"docid": "100683",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For the vast majority, \"\"buying\"\" a house via a mortgage is not an investment. I use quotes around buying because from a technical perspective you don't own anything until you've paid it off; this is often an important point that people forget. It's highly unlikely you'll make more on it than the amount you put into it (interest, repairs, etc). Even with relatively low interest rates. The people who successfully invest in homes are those that use actual cash (not borrowed) to buy a home at well below market value. They then clean it up and make enough repairs to make it marketable and sell it shortly there after. Sometimes these people get hosed if the housing market tumbles to the point that the home is now worth less than the amount they put into it. This is especially problematic if they used bank loans to get the process going. They were actually the hardest hit when the housing bubble popped several years ago. Well, them and the people who bought on interest only loans or had balloon payments. Whereas the people who use a mortgage are essentially treating it like a bank account with a negative interest rate. For example, $180k loan on a 30 yr fixed at 4% will mean a total payout of around $310k, excluding normal repairs like roofs, carpet, etc. Due to how mortgage's work, most of the interest is collected during the first half of the loan period. So selling it within 2 to 5 years is usually problematic unless the local housing market has really skyrocketed. Housing markets move up and down all the time due to a hundred different things completely out of your control. It might be a regional depression, weather events, failed large businesses, failed city/local governments, etc. It could go up because businesses moved in, a new highway is built, state/local taxes decline, etc. My point is, homes are not long term investments. They can be short term ones, but only in limited circumstances and there is a high degree of risk involved. So don't let that be a driving point of your decision. Instead you need to focus on other factors. Such as: what is really going on with the house you are currently in? Why would they lose it? Can you help out, and, should you help out? If things are precarious, it might make more sense to sell that home now and everyone move into separate locations, possibly different rentals or apartments. If they are foreclosed on then they will be in a world of financial hurt for a long time. If we ignore your parents situation, then one piece of advice I would give you is this: Rent the cheapest apartment you can find that is still a \"\"safe\"\" place to live in. Put every dollar you can into some type of savings/investment that will actually grow. Stay there for 5+ years, then go pay cash for a nice home. Making $75k a year while single means that you don't need much to live on. In other words, live extremely cheap now so you can enjoy a fantastic living experience later that is free from financial fear. You should be able to put $30k+ per year aside going this route. edit: A bit of support data for those that somehow think buying a home on a mortgage is somehow a good investment: Robert Shiller, who won a Nobel prize in economics and who predicted the bursting of the housing bubble, has shown that a house is not a good investment. Why? First, home prices (adjusted for inflation) have been virtually unchanged for the past 100 years. (link 1, link 2) Second, after you add in the costs of maintenance alone then those costs plus what you've paid for the home will exceed what you get out of it. Adding in the cost of a mortgage could easily double or even triple the price you paid which makes things even worse. Maintenance costs include things like a new roof, carpet/flooring, water heater, appliances, etc. Yes, a home might cost you $100k and you might sell it for $200k after 15 years. However during that time you'll likely replace the roof ($10k to $20k), replace appliances ($2k to $5k), water heater ($1k), carpet/flooring ($5k to $20k), paint ($3k to $6k), and mortgage related costs (~$60k - assuming 30 yr fixed @4%). So your \"\"costs\"\" are between $180k and $200k just on those items. There are many more that could easily escalate the costs further. Like a fence ($5k+), air conditioner ($5k+), windows, etc. The above is assuming the home actually appreciates in value faster than inflation: which they historically haven't over the long term. So you have to consider all of the costs ultimately paid to purchase and maintain the home vs the costs of renting during the same time period. Point is: do your research and be realistic about it. Buying a home is a huge financial risk.\""
},
{
"docid": "223380",
"title": "",
"text": "It's very simple, line up your debt in the order of interest rate, tax adjusted, and start with the highest rate. Too simple? If knocking off the $7500 loan feels better to you than the fact that you are still paying 9% on $7500 (as part of the $20K) makes you feel bad, just pay off the $7500. I'd rather be ahead $210/yr. (A celebrity advocates the small wins promoting good feelings and encouragement. If that actually works for some, I won't criticize it here) If freeing up the $200/mo payment enables you to do something else that's beneficial, that's another story. I've written how $10,000 of student loan can keep you from qualifying for $30K or more of mortgage. In isolation, highest rate. With the rest of the picture, other advice might be more suitable. Welcome to Money.SE"
},
{
"docid": "432961",
"title": "",
"text": "As the other answers suggest, there are a number of ways of going about it and the correct one will be dependent on your situation (amount of equity in your current house, cashflow primarily, amount of time between purchase and sale). If you have a fair amount of equity (for example, $50K mortgage remaining on a house valued at $300K), I'll propose an option that's similar to bridge financing: Place an offer on your new house. Use some of your equity as part of the down payment (eg, $130K). Use some more of your equity as a cash buffer to allow you pay two mortgages in between the purchase and the sale (eg, $30K). The way this would be executed is that your existing mortgage would be discharged and replaced with larger mortgage. The proceeds of that mortgage would be split between the down payment and cash as you desire. Between the closing of your purchase and the closing of your sale, you'll be paying two mortgages and you'll be responsible for two properties. Not fun, but your cash buffer is there to sustain you through this. When the sale of your new home closes, you'll be breaking the mortgage on that house. When you get the proceeds of the sale, it would be a good time to use any lump sum/prepayment privileges you have on the mortgage of the new house. You'll be paying legal fees for each transaction and penalties for each mortgage you break. However, the interest rates will be lower than bridge financing. For this reason, this approach will likely be cheaper than bridge financing only if the time between the closing of the two deals is fairly long (eg, at least 6 months), and the penalties for breaking mortgages are reasonable (eg, 3 months interest). You would need the help of a good mortgage broker and a good lawyer, but you would also have to do your own due diligence - remember that brokers receive a commission for each mortgage they sell. If you won't have any problems selling your current house quickly, bridge financing is likely a better deal. If you need to hold on to it for a while because you need to fix things up or it will be harder to sell, you can consider this approach."
},
{
"docid": "115111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\""
},
{
"docid": "104148",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Honestly, I see we don't see eye to eye but I can't put my finger on it. Take the American heart association for example - you mention people who weren't middle class might not know who they are. I didn't get to eat at a sandwich restaurant for the first time until right before I graduated high school. I was so happy when I got to eat that first sandwich someone else made, and then when I saw the american heart association logo on the menu, I just assumed it was healthy. I didn't need previous experience. Perhaps my example seems like something a middle class person would do, because I grew up aspiring to be middle class and the things I did wrong are things I thought middle class people did. To most of my point, all that is irrelevant. When you are poor, no one wants to give you advice. When you are middle class, the advice you can afford is not good but it presents itself as good. When you are well off, everyone wants to take advantage of you and good advice is hard to discern from poor advice. Your use of the phrase \"\"the system\"\" is interesting to me. Under no circumstances would I advocate \"\"the system\"\" be trusted. In fact, in my mind, what I've described is \"\"the system\"\" accidentally but perfectly preparing people to be unable to transcend socioeconomic status, because we were prepare people to think the haves are lucky, as opposed to teaching the have-notes how to establish a plan such that their children will have opportunities and their grand children will be well off and their great grand children will be rich.\""
},
{
"docid": "8480",
"title": "",
"text": "It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter. When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid. When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property. If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable. This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss. For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage. Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered). If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk. There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk. It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side. Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying. Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble."
},
{
"docid": "326094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\""
}
] |
6252 | Is this mortgage advice good, or is it hooey? | [
{
"docid": "379487",
"title": "",
"text": "Sounds fishy - taking out more debt to pay the main mortgage down faster? There are a couple of issues I can see: I would think that a much more sensible strategy with a lot less risk is to save up extra cash and send your lender a check every quarter or six months."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "141738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\""
},
{
"docid": "207564",
"title": "",
"text": "Strictly by the numbers, putting more than 20% down is a losing proposition. With interest rates still near all time lows, you're likely able to get a mortgage for less than 4%. The real rate of a return on the market (subtracting inflation and taxes) is going to be somewhere around 5-6%. So by this math, you'd be best off paying the minimum to get out of PMI, and then investing the remainder in a low fee index fund. The question becomes how much that 1-2% is worth to you vs how much the job flexibility is worth. It boils down to your personal risk preference, life conditions, etc. so it is difficult to give good advice. The 1-2% difference in your rate of return is not going to be catastrophic. Personally, I would run the numbers with your fiance. Build a spreadsheet tracking your estimated net worth under the assumption that you make a 20% down payment and invest the rest. Then hold all other factors equal, and re-build the spreadsheet with the higher down payment. Factor in one of you losing your job for a few years, or one of you taking off for a while to raise the kids. You can make a judgement call based how the two of you feel about those numbers."
},
{
"docid": "320675",
"title": "",
"text": "You should never take advice from someone else in relation to a question like this. Who would you blame if things go wrong and you lose money or make less than your savings account. For this reason I will give you the same answer I gave to one of your previous similar questions: If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first. Don't put any money down unless you know what your potential risks are and have a risk management strategy in place, especially if it is from advice provided by someone else. The first rule before starting any new investment is to understand what your potential risks are and have a plane to manage and reduce those risks."
},
{
"docid": "491682",
"title": "",
"text": "First, some general advice that I think you should consider A good rule of thumb on home buying is to wait to buy until you expect to live in the same place for at least 5 years. This period of time is meant to reduce the impact of closing costs, which can be 1-5% of your total buying & selling price. If you bought and sold in the same year, for example, then you might need to pay over 5% of the value of your home to realtors & lawyers! This means that for many people, it is unwise to buy a home expecting it to be your 'starter' home, if you already are thinking about what your next (presumably bigger) home will look like. If you buy a townhouse expecting to sell it in 3 years to buy a house, you are partially gambling on the chance that increases in your townhome's value will offset the closing costs & mortgage interest paid. Increases in home value are not a sure thing. In many areas, the total costs of home ownership are about equivalent to the total costs of renting, when you factor in maintenance. I notice you don't even mention renting as an option - make sure you at least consider it, before deciding to buy! Also, don't buy a house expecting your life situation to 'make up the difference' in your budget. If you're expecting your girlfriend to move in with you in a year, that implies that you aren't living together now, and maybe haven't talked about it. Even if she says now that she would move in within a year, there's no guarantee that things work out that way. Taking on a mortgage is a commitment that you need to take on yourself; no one else will be liable for the payments. As for whether a townhouse or a detached house helps you meet your needs better, don't get caught up in terminology. There are few differences between houses & townhomes that are universal. Stereotypically townhomes are cheaper, smaller, noisier, and have condo associations with monthly fees to pay for maintenance on joint property. But that is something that differs on a case-by-case basis. Don't get tricked into buying a 1,100 sq ft house with a restrictive HOA, instead of a 1,400 sq ft free-hold townhouse, just because townhouses have a certain reputation. The only true difference between a house and a townhouse is that 1 or both of your walls are shared with a neighbor. Everything else is flexible."
},
{
"docid": "586632",
"title": "",
"text": "Try this as a starter - my eBook served up as a blog (http://www.sspf.co.uk/blog/001/). Then read as much as possible about investing. Once you have money set aside for emergencies, then make some steps towards investing. I'd guide you towards low-fee 'tracker-style' funds to provide a bedrock to long-term investing. Your post suggests it will be investing over the long-term (ie. 5-10 years or more), perhaps even to middle-age/retirement? Read as much as you can about the types of investments: unit trusts, investment trusts, ETFs; fixed-interest (bonds/corporate bonds), equities (IPOs/shares/dividends), property (mortgages, buy-to-let, off-plan). Be conservative and start with simple products. If you don't understand enough to describe it to me in a lift in 60 seconds, stay away from it and learn more about it. Many of the items you think are good long-term investments will be available within any pension plans you encounter, so the learning has a double benefit. Work a plan. Learn all the time. Keep your day-to-day life quite conservative and be more risky in your long-term investing. And ask for advice on things here, from friends who aren't skint and professionals for specific tasks (IFAs, financial planners, personal finance coaches, accountants, mortgage brokers). The fact you're being proactive tells me you've the tools to do well. Best wishes to you."
},
{
"docid": "352271",
"title": "",
"text": "because the market price for good investment advice isn't that low. investment advice is subject to market pricing just like any other good or service. if you are good enough at investing that you seek increased volatility opportunities, you will have no trouble finding investors willing to give you a share of the upside without any of the downside risk."
},
{
"docid": "543365",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\""
},
{
"docid": "32749",
"title": "",
"text": "$100K of mortgage debt at 4%, 30 years will result in a $477/mo mortgage. It would take about $23K in income to have 25% of the monthly income cover the mortgage. This means, that with no other large debts, a bank will lend you about 4X your income. If, instead of 25%, we decided that having 20% of income go to the mortgage, the ratio drops to just over 3X. In the end, it comes down to keshlam's advice regarding a budget. I think the question can't be answered as asked, given the fact that you offer no numbers. For the average person, credit card debt, student loans, and cars payments add up to enough to chip away at the amount the bank will lend you. Since (per one of the linked questions) the maximum debt service should be 36%, you start with that and subtract all current payments. If this doesn't suffice, let us know what, exactly you're looking for ."
},
{
"docid": "423229",
"title": "",
"text": "It looks like the advice the rep is giving is based primarily on the sunk cost fallacy; advice based on a fallacy is poor advice. Bob has recognised this trap and is explicitly avoiding it. It is possible that the advice that the rep is trying to give is that Fund #1 is presently undervalued but, if so, that is a good investment irrespective if Bob has lost money there before or even if he has ever had funds in it."
},
{
"docid": "537280",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage. I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed."
},
{
"docid": "319159",
"title": "",
"text": "Ultimately the bank will have first call on the house and you will be the only one on the hook directly to the bank if you don't make the mortgage payments. There's nothing you can do to avoid that if you can't get a joint mortgage. What you could do is make a side agreement that your girlfriend would be entitled to half the equity in the house, and would be required to make half the payments (via you). You could perhaps also add that she would be part responsible for helping you clear any arrears. But in the end it'd just be a deal between you and her. She wouldn't have any direct rights over the house and she wouldn't be at risk of the bank pursuing her if you don't pay the mortgage. You'd probably also need legal advice to make it watertight, but you could also not worry about that too much and just write it all down as formally as possible. It really depends if you're just trying to improve your feelings about the process or whether you really want something that you could both rely on in the event of a later split. I don't think getting married would make any make any real difference day-to-day. In law, with rare exceptions, the finances of spouses are independent from each other. However in the longer term, being married would mean your now-wife would have a stronger legal claim on half the equity in the house in the event of you splitting up."
},
{
"docid": "215214",
"title": "",
"text": "Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately. Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible. You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business. Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house. If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately. Taxes suck."
},
{
"docid": "333219",
"title": "",
"text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\""
},
{
"docid": "13621",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I read Rich Dad, Poor Dad and I must say, found a lot of value in it. And I like to think I have a very good understanding of finance - both personal and corporate. Econ major, have worked at several major brokerages dispensing financial advice for a living, including at my current employer. But I do remember, back in 2005, when I read Kiyosaki's book, signing up to be contacted by a \"\"Rich Dad Coach\"\" - or something like that. Basically, some guy at the Rich Dad company who would be a financial mentor or sorts. Long story short, the Rich Dad Coach asked for my credit score, which was high, and proceeded to recommend that I max out my credit to buy a house to flip in \"\"1-2 months.\"\" Now, it's true that it could have worked. But was it good advice? Fucking hell no it wasn't. And I think he wanted 5k to coach me through the process. I could have made money doing it, even with paying him 5k, but SPECULATING by taking out personal lines of credit is not consistent with anything in the Rich Dad book. Showed me right there that while the book's advice may be good, that organization was just out to make a buck at the readers' expense.\""
},
{
"docid": "482932",
"title": "",
"text": "K, welcome to Money.SE. You knew enough to add good tags to the question. Now, you should search on the dozens of questions with those tags to understand (in less than an hour) far more than that banker knows about credit and credit scores. My advice is first, never miss a payment. Ever. The advice your father passed on to you is nonsense, plain and simple. I'm just a few chapters shy of being able to write a book about the incorrect advice I'd heard bank people give their customers. The second bit of advice is that you don't need to pay interest to have credit cards show good payment history. i.e. if you choose to use credit cards, use them for the convenience, cash/rebates, tracking, and guarantees they can offer. Pay in full each bill. Last - use a free service, first, AnnualCreditReport.com to get a copy of your credit report, and then a service like Credit Karma for a simulated FICO score and advice on how to improve it. As member @Agop has commented, Discover (not just for cardholders) offers a look at your actual score, as do a number of other credit cards for members. (By the way, I wouldn't be inclined to discuss this with dad. Most people take offense that you'd believe strangers more than them. Most of the answers here are well documented with links to IRS, etc, and if not, quickly peer-reviewed. When I make a mistake, a top-rated member will correct me within a day, if not just minutes)"
},
{
"docid": "150450",
"title": "",
"text": "First of all, I've raised VC money before so I have experience in this area. The other commenter who said they'll only cause trouble is wrong, as a general statement. Some may, but that just means you've chosen your investors poorly. Choosing an investor is a very important decision and you should choose someone who you think will be able truly add value to your business, rather than just someone who is willing to write a check. Cultural alignment is important, and having a shared set of goals and timelines for the business is important. That said, no one here is going to be able to tell you how to structure your deal because it varies so much based on the business. In general I think it's a good idea to only take money when you need it and have a solid plan for how you're going to use it. Every time you take money you're diluting your ownership and reducing your long-term upside. Keep in mind that, as the other commenter said, if you take a deal now that means that you maintain 51% and then you take more money in the future, that 51% will be diluted further. That said with more investors in the mix you still are likely to be the largest shareholder, but again, that depends on how the deals are structured. My advice: seek out as much advice from as many sources as you can. And hire a good law firm to handle your financing transaction because their advice is invaluable as you negotiate terms. Finally, you should have more conditions than just retaining 51% ownership -- there are a lot of terms that get baked into these deals that have an impact on the long-term upside. Learn those terms. Do a bunch of googling and a bunch of reading. And ask for more advice. :)"
},
{
"docid": "453624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Historically, Banks are mandated to take relatively safe risks with their money. In exchange, they gain a de-facto permission to invent new money. They have regulations about what mix of assets they are permitted to own. Real estate speculation will be in a different category than a mortgage to someone with good credit. Second, mortgages with a secured asset are pretty safe almost all of the time. That person might stop paying their mortgage, but it is secured; when that happens, the bank gets the secured asset (the right-to-apartment or house or what have you). In a sense, the bank loses only if both the person paying the mortgage is less creditworthy than they look, and the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. In comparison, the person paying the mortgage loses if the secured asset cannot recoup their losses. The bank is buffered from risk two fold. What more, the bank uses the customer to determine what to invest in. Deciding what to do with money is expensive and hard. By both having a customer willing to put their good credit on the line and doing due diligence on the apartment, the Bank in effect uses you as a consultant who decides this may be a solid investment. Much of the risk of failure is on you, so you have lots of incentive to make a good choice. If the Bank was instead deciding which apartment where worth buying, who would decide? A bank employee, whose bonus this year depends on finding a \"\"great apartment to invest in?\"\", but the consequence of a bad choice doesn't show up for many years? The people selling the bank the apartments? Such a business can exist. There are real estate companies that take money, and invest it in real estate. Often the borrow money from Banks secured against their existing real estate and use it to build more real estate. (Notice the bit about it being secured against existing real estate; things go south, Bank gets stuff). The Bank's indirect investment in that apartment in the current system is covered by appraisals, the seller, the mortgage holder, and the system deciding that the mortgage holder is creditworthy. Banks sell risk. They lend you money, you go off and do something risky with it, and they get a the low-risk return on investment of your loan. Multiple such low-risk investments provides them with a relatively dependable stream of money, which they give out to their bondholders, deposit account customers, shareholders or what have you. When you take a mortgage out for that, you are buying risk from the bank. You are more exposed to the failure of the investment than they are. They get less return if things go really well.\""
},
{
"docid": "115111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\""
},
{
"docid": "78518",
"title": "",
"text": "There are several factors that you need to consider: If you have already decided on the house. Did you prequalify for the mortgage loan - If so, did you lock in the rate. If you have not already done than your research is still valid. Consider two calculators first - Affordability + Mortgage calculator Advice : If you can afford to pay 20% down then please do, Lesser monthly mortgage payment, you can save approx 400 $ per month, the above calculator will give you an exact idea. If you can afford go for 15 years loan - Lower interest rate over 2-5 years period. Do not assume the average ROI will + 8-10%. It all depends on market and has variable factors like city, area and demand. In terms of Income your interest payment is Tax deductible at the end of the year."
}
] |
6252 | Is this mortgage advice good, or is it hooey? | [
{
"docid": "62868",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the idea here is that because of the way mortgages are amortized, you can drop additional principal payments in the early years of the mortgage and significantly lower the overall interest expense over the life of the loan. A HELOC accrues interest like a credit card, so if you make a large principal payment using a HELOC, you will be able to retire those \"\"chunks\"\" of debt quicker than if you made normal mortgage payments. I haven't worked out the numbers, but I suspect that you could achieve similar results by simply paying ahead -- making even one extra payment per year will take 7-9 years off of a 30 year loan. I think that the advantage of the HELOC approach is that if you borrow enough, you may be able to recalculate/lower the payment of the mortgage.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "209684",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not an attorney or a tax advisor. The following is NOT to be considered advice, just general information. In the US, \"\"putting your name on the deed\"\" would mean making you a co-owner. Absent any other legal agreement between you (e.g. a contract stating each of you owns 50% of the house), both of you would then be considered to own 100% of the house, jointly and severally: In addition, the IRS would almost certainly interpret the creation of your ownership interest as a gift from your partner to you, making them liable for gift tax. The gift tax could be postponed by filing a gift tax return, which would reduce partner's lifetime combined gift/estate tax exemption. And if you sought to get rid of your ownership interest by giving it to your partner, it would again be a taxable gift, with the tax (or loss of estate tax exemption) accruing to you. However, it is likely that this is all moot because of the mortgage on the house. Any change to the deed would have to be approved by the mortgage holder and (if so approved) executed by a title company/registered closing agent or similar (depending on the laws of your state). In my similar case, the mortgage holder refused to add or remove any names from the deed unless I refinanced (at a higher rate, naturally) making the new partners jointly liable for the mortgage. We also had to pay an additional title fee to change the deed.\""
},
{
"docid": "352271",
"title": "",
"text": "because the market price for good investment advice isn't that low. investment advice is subject to market pricing just like any other good or service. if you are good enough at investing that you seek increased volatility opportunities, you will have no trouble finding investors willing to give you a share of the upside without any of the downside risk."
},
{
"docid": "434257",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \"\"investment\"\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\""
},
{
"docid": "215214",
"title": "",
"text": "Others have already made good points, so I'll just add a few more: You say that if you bought it, your mortgage, insurance, and taxes minus the rental income from the bottom floor would leave you with costs of 1/4 of your current rent. That means you're getting a fantastic deal on the purchase price. I suspect you may be underestimating some of those costs. So, get exact figures on the mortgage, insurance and taxes and do the math. If it is that good, go for it, just make sure to get that home inspection (in case there's major problems and they're trying to get out while the gettin's good) Also, some advice: Be prepared to cover that entire monthly cost for a few months. Units can stand empty for a while. Also, you may want to rent out slowly - a good tenent found after a couple months is much better than a bad tenent found quickly. Also, have some money set aside for maintenence. As a renter, you've never really had to think about that before, but as a homeowner you do. As a landlord, it's even more important - you can not fix something in your own home for a while if you needed to wait, but in a tenent unit, you have to fix it immediately. Finally, taxes: You do get to deduct interest, and so on, but it'll work a little differently than you think. You'll have to split it in half (if the units are the same size) and deduct half the interest as a normal homeowner deduction, the other half as a business expense. Same for PMI, insurance, and property taxes. If you do maintenance that effects both units, like fixing the roof, half will be deductible, the other half not. However, maintenance that only affects the tenant unit is fully deductible. You can claim depreciation, but only for half. So, your starting amount you can depreciate would be (purchase price - land value)/2. Same thing here - half is your home, the other half is a business. Note that some things you'd think of as maintenance costs actually can't be deducted, only depreciated over time. Take that leaky roof, for example. If you replaced it instead of repairing it, you could not deduct your replacement costs. It counts as an improvement, and gets added to your cost-basis, where you depreciate it along with (half!) the house. If your tenant's refrigerator went out, and you replaced it, you couldn't deduct that either. However you can depreciate all of it on another schedule (seperate from home depreciation). If you repaired it instead, you can deduct all of it immediately. Taxes suck."
},
{
"docid": "141738",
"title": "",
"text": "\"About deducting mortgage interest: No, you can not deduct it unless it is qualified mortgage interest. \"\"Qualified mortgage interest is interest and points you pay on a loan secured by your main home or a second home.\"\" (Tax Topic 505). According to the IRS, \"\"if you rent out the residence, you must use it for more than 14 days or more than 10% of the number of days you rent it out, whichever is longer.\"\" Regarding being taxed on income received from the property, if you claim the foreign tax credit you will not be double taxed. According to the IRS, \"\"The foreign tax credit intends to reduce the double tax burden that would otherwise arise when foreign source income is taxed by both the United States and the foreign country from which the income is derived.\"\" (from IRS Topic 856 - Foreign Tax Credit) About property taxes: From my understanding, these cannot be claimed for the foreign tax credit but can be deducted as business expenses. There are various exceptions and stipulations based on your circumstance, so you need to read the official publications and get professional tax advice. Here's an excerpt from Publication 856 - Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals: \"\"In most cases, only foreign income taxes qualify for the foreign tax credit. Other taxes, such as foreign real and personal property taxes, do not qualify. But you may be able to deduct these other taxes even if you claim the foreign tax credit for foreign income taxes. In most cases, you can deduct these other taxes only if they are expenses incurred in a trade or business or in the production of income. However, you can deduct foreign real property taxes that are not trade or business expenses as an itemized deduction on Schedule A (Form 1040).\"\" Note and disclaimer: Sources: IRS Tax Topic 505 Interest Expense, IRS Real Estate (Taxes, Mortgage Interest, Points, Other Property Expenses) , IRS Topic 514 Foreign Tax Credit , and Publication 856 Foreign Tax Credit for Individuals\""
},
{
"docid": "114435",
"title": "",
"text": "An article linked from cnn.com has some great advice, which I think are good rules of thumb. Also, at least my insurance gives a premium price for those who haven't filed a claim in 5 or more years for homeowners or rental insurance. See if you have a similar discount, will loose it, and guess how much that will cost you over 5 years. My rule of thumb: Your premium might go up quite a bit, possibly as much as triple, especially for a large claim. But, it is certainly worth it if you are going to get more than triple your premium through your claim. The worst case: Mortgage mandated insurance, which will be about triple your current cost."
},
{
"docid": "4739",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some pros and cons to renting vs buying: Some advantages of buying: When you rent, the money you pay is gone. When you buy, assuming you don't have the cash to buy outright but get a mortgage, some of the payment goes to interest, but you are building equity. Ultimately you pay off the mortgage and you can then live rent-free. When you buy, you can alter your home to your liking. You can paint in the colors you like, put in the carpet or flooring you like, heck, tear down walls and alter the floor plan (subject to building codes and safety consideration, of course). If you rent, you are usually sharply limited in what alterations you can make. In the U.S., mortgage interest is tax deductible. Rent is not. Property taxes are deductible from your federal income tax. So if you have, say, $1000 mortgage vs $1000 rent, the mortgage is actually cheaper. Advantages of renting: There are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying a house. You have to pay a realtor's commission, various legal fees, usually \"\"loan origination fees\"\" to the bank, etc. Plus the way mortgages are designed, your total payment is the same throughout the life of the loan. But for the first payment you owe interest on the total balance of the loan, while the last payment you only owe interest on a small amount. So early payments are mostly interest. This leads to the conventional advice that you should not buy unless you plan to live in the house for some reasonably long period of time, exact amount varying with whose giving the advice, but I think 3 to 5 years is common. One mitigating factor: Bear in mind that if you buy a house, and then after 2 years sell it, and you discover that the sale price minus purchase price minus closing costs ends up a net minus, say, $20,000, it's not entirely fair to say \"\"zounds! I lost $20,000 by buying\"\". If you had not bought this house, presumably you would have been renting. So the fair comparison is, mortgage payments plus losses on the resale compared to likely rental payments for the same period.\""
},
{
"docid": "537280",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage. I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed."
},
{
"docid": "290691",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\""
},
{
"docid": "315017",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on the bank - In some cases(mine included :) ) the bank allowed for this but Emma had to sign on a document waiving the rights for the house in case the bank needs to liquidate assets in to recover their mortgage in case of delays or non-payment of dues in time. This had to be signed after taking independent legal advice from a legal adviser."
},
{
"docid": "207564",
"title": "",
"text": "Strictly by the numbers, putting more than 20% down is a losing proposition. With interest rates still near all time lows, you're likely able to get a mortgage for less than 4%. The real rate of a return on the market (subtracting inflation and taxes) is going to be somewhere around 5-6%. So by this math, you'd be best off paying the minimum to get out of PMI, and then investing the remainder in a low fee index fund. The question becomes how much that 1-2% is worth to you vs how much the job flexibility is worth. It boils down to your personal risk preference, life conditions, etc. so it is difficult to give good advice. The 1-2% difference in your rate of return is not going to be catastrophic. Personally, I would run the numbers with your fiance. Build a spreadsheet tracking your estimated net worth under the assumption that you make a 20% down payment and invest the rest. Then hold all other factors equal, and re-build the spreadsheet with the higher down payment. Factor in one of you losing your job for a few years, or one of you taking off for a while to raise the kids. You can make a judgement call based how the two of you feel about those numbers."
},
{
"docid": "368698",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Whether your financial status is considered \"\"OK\"\" depends on your aspirations. You aren't spending more than you earn and have no debt. That puts you in the category of OK in my book, but the information in your post indicates that you would benefit from some financial advice--100 grand sounds like a lot of money to have in a bank unless you are on the verge of spending it. Financial advisors come in various shapes and sizes. Many will charge you a lot for what turns out to be helpful advice in the first meeting, but very little value-added thereafter. Some don't have the best incentives (they may be incentivized to encourage you to put your money into certain funds, for example). There are many financial advisors (of sorts) that you have access to that won't cost you anything. For example, if you have a 401(k) at work, I bet there is a representative from the plan administrator that will meet with you for free. If you open a brokerage account or IRA at any place (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.) you can easily talk with one of their reps and get all sorts of advice. My personal take is to meet with anyone who will meet with me for free, but not to pay anyone for this service. It's too easy to get good advice and paying for it doesn't guarantee that you get better advice. Your financial situation will depend primarily on a few things you have not mentioned here. For example, How much are you setting aside for retirement and what are your retirement goals? This is something lots of people can give you advice on, but we don't know what market returns will be going forward so we don't really know. One bit of advice that may benefit you is how to set aside money for retirement in the most tax advantaged way. How much do you feel that you need saved up for large expenses? Thinking of starting a family? How many months worth of income are you comfortable having set aside? What is your tolerance of risk? If you put your money in risky assets, you may make more, but you may also actually lose money. Those are the questions a financial advisor will ask about. Once you have his/her advice--and preferrably after talking to a few advisors--you can make your own decision. Basically, your options are: Rules of thumb: Save only what makes sense to save in banks given your expected needs for cash. Put a lot in tax advantaged accounts (don't give Uncle Sam any gifts). Then look at financial and real investments. There are a number of free resources on the internet. For example FutureAdvisor. Or you can hit up the forums at BogleHeads. Those guys give and receive financial advice as a hobby. They aren't professionals, but you can get a lot of varying ideas and make up your own mind, which to me is better than (just) asking a professional. BTW, regarding the ESPP: these plans often give you a discount on stock and can therefore be a good idea. Just be sure you don't hold the stock longer than you need to. It's generally a bad idea to concentrate your wealth in any single investment, especially one highly correlated with your background risk (i.e., if the company does poorly you will already be worse off because you may lose your job or see fewer advancement opportunities. No need to add losses in your savings to that). 1 Please note: I am neither advocating nor discouraging buying guns, gold, or other controversial real assets. I'm just giving examples of items some people buy as part of their wealth-preservation strategy.\""
},
{
"docid": "495089",
"title": "",
"text": "The best analysis I know of Kiyosaki and his advice somes from a genuine property expert who gives plenty of good advice. If you are really interested then check out [John T Reed on Robert T Kiyosaki](http://www.johntreed.com/Kiyosaki.html)."
},
{
"docid": "456783",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is obviously a spam mail. Your mortgage is a public record, and mortgage brokers and insurance agents were, are and will be soliciting your business, as long as they feel they have a chance of getting it. Nothing that that particular company offers is unique to them, nothing they can offer you cannot be done by anyone else. It is my personal belief that we should not do business with spammers, and that is why I suggest you to remember the company name and never deal with them. However, it is up to you if you want to follow that advice or not. What they're offering is called refinance. Any bank, credit union or mortgage broker does that. The rates are more or less the same everywhere, but the closing fees and application fees is where the small brokers are making their money. Big banks get their money from also servicing the loans, so they're more flexible on fees. All of them can do \"\"streamline\"\" refinance if your mortgage is eligible. None if it isn't. Note that the ones who service your current mortgage might not be the ones who own it, thus \"\"renegotiating the rate\"\" is most likely not an option (FHA backed loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie, the original lenders continue servicing them - but don't own them). Refinancing - is a more likely option, and in this case the lender will not care about your rate on the old mortgage.\""
},
{
"docid": "32749",
"title": "",
"text": "$100K of mortgage debt at 4%, 30 years will result in a $477/mo mortgage. It would take about $23K in income to have 25% of the monthly income cover the mortgage. This means, that with no other large debts, a bank will lend you about 4X your income. If, instead of 25%, we decided that having 20% of income go to the mortgage, the ratio drops to just over 3X. In the end, it comes down to keshlam's advice regarding a budget. I think the question can't be answered as asked, given the fact that you offer no numbers. For the average person, credit card debt, student loans, and cars payments add up to enough to chip away at the amount the bank will lend you. Since (per one of the linked questions) the maximum debt service should be 36%, you start with that and subtract all current payments. If this doesn't suffice, let us know what, exactly you're looking for ."
},
{
"docid": "8480",
"title": "",
"text": "It is highly unlikely that this would be approved by a mortgage underwriter. When the bank gives a loan with a security interest in a property (a lien), they are protected - if the borrower does not repay the loan, the property can be foreclosed on and sold, and the lender is made whole for the amount of the loan that was not repaid. When two parties are listed on the deed, then each owns an UNDIVIDED 50% share in the property. If only one party has pledged the property as surety against the loan, then in effect only 50% of the property is forecloseable. This means that the bank is unable to recoup its loss. For a (fictional, highly simplified) concrete example, suppose that the house is worth $100,000 and Adam and Zoe are listed on the deed, but Adam is the borrower for a $100,000 mortgage. Adam owes $100,000 and has an asset worth $50,000 (which he has pledged as security for the loan), while Zoe owes nothing and has an asset worth $50,000 (which is entirely unencumbered). If Adam does not pay the mortgage, the bank would only be able to foreclose on his $50,000 half of the property, leaving them exposed to great risk. There are other legal and financial reasons, but overall I think you'll find it very difficult to locate a lender who is willing to take that kind of risk. It's very complicated and there is absolutely no up-side. Also - speaking from experience (from which I was protected because of the bank's underwriting rules) and echoing the advice offered by others on this site: don't bother trying. Commingling assets without a contract (either implicit by marriage or explicit by, well a contract) is going to get you in trouble."
},
{
"docid": "320675",
"title": "",
"text": "You should never take advice from someone else in relation to a question like this. Who would you blame if things go wrong and you lose money or make less than your savings account. For this reason I will give you the same answer I gave to one of your previous similar questions: If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first. Don't put any money down unless you know what your potential risks are and have a risk management strategy in place, especially if it is from advice provided by someone else. The first rule before starting any new investment is to understand what your potential risks are and have a plane to manage and reduce those risks."
},
{
"docid": "543365",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\""
},
{
"docid": "435740",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates. As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates. This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there. Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%. Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks). That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation. Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about? Those were in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years? Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%. Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually. That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing. In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation. They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%). This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point. Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board). Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less. The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term. Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also. Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace. Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for. Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level. If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references:"
}
] |
6262 | Help required on estimating SSA benefit amounts | [
{
"docid": "34538",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some details in case you are interested: Being a defined benefit kind of pension plan, the formula for your Social Security benefits isn't tied directly to FICA contributions, and I'm not aware of any calculator that performs an ROI based on FICA contributions. Rather, how much you'll get in retirement is based on your average indexed monthly earnings. Here's some information on the Social Security calculation from the Social Security Administration - Primary Insurance Amount (PIA): For an individual who first becomes eligible for old-age insurance benefits or disability insurance benefits in 2013, or who dies in 2013 before becoming eligible for benefits, his/her PIA will be the sum of: (a) 90 percent of the first $791 of his/her average indexed monthly earnings, plus (b) 32 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $791 and through $4,768, plus (c) 15 percent of his/her average indexed monthly earnings over $4,768. Here's an example. Of course, to calculate a benefit in the future, you'll need to calculate projected average indexed monthly earnings; more details here. You'll also need to make assumptions about what those bend points might be in the future. The average wage indexing values for calculating the AIME are available from the Social Security Administration's site, but future indexing values will also need to be projected based on an assumption about their inflation. You'll also need to project the Contribution and Benefit Base which limits the earnings used to calculate contributions and benefits. Also, the PIA calculation assumes benefits are taken at the normal retirement age. Calculating an early or late retirement factor is required to adjust benefits for another age. Then, whatever benefits you get will increase each year, because the benefit is increased based on annual changes in the cost of living. Performing the series of calculations by hand isn't my idea of fun, but implementing it as a spreadsheet (or a web page) and adding in some \"\"ROI based on FICA contributions\"\" calculations might be an interesting exercise if you are so inclined? For completeness sake, I'll mention that the SSA also provides source code for a Social Security Benefit Calculator.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "90238",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is that it's never the right time to buy an emerging technology. As long as the technology is emerging, you should expect that newer revisions will be both better and less expensive. With solar, specifically, there are some tax credits to help the early adopters that may help you on the cost/benefit analysis, but in the end, you still have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs now, and if not, whether that will change in the near future. For me, part of the solar benefit is the ability to generate electricity when the power goes out. That option does require local battery storage, however. One of the benefits of using Musk's solar tiles instead of actual slate is the weight of the quartz tiles which is much lower than the weight of real slate. In many cases a slate roof is heavy enough to require major reinforcement of the roof trusses before installation. The lower weight also saves significantly on shipping costs. This is where Musk can lower costs enough to be competitive to some of the materials he hope to compete with."
},
{
"docid": "250084",
"title": "",
"text": "What you need to do is to reduce the withholding from your wages, or pay a smaller amount in your quarterly payments of estimated tax (if you are self-employed). To reduce withholding from wages, fill out a new W4 form (available from your employer's HR department). There is a worksheet in the form that will help you figure out what to write on the various lines. As a single person, you are entitled to claim an exemption for yourself, and if you have not been claiming that exemption, doing so will reduce your withholding, and presumably your tax refund."
},
{
"docid": "518740",
"title": "",
"text": "Your hard and compelling preparing must be related with the correct amount of games sustenance important protein. This will help you in expanding your wellness capacity and in the process acquire more power, quality, and stamina as you prepare. You have the right stuff and are legitimately spurred so you are into games and need steady training. To have the training, you require Sports Nutrition and Workout Support. This will help in arranging you for your next exercise, the more will be your requirement for a holding framework, similar to sports sustenance items, for example, essential protein."
},
{
"docid": "485604",
"title": "",
"text": "Can you estimate the approximate cost of employing one of each? Would they work as contractors, or employees? Glassdoor can be a great resource for estimating the current market for local labor costs. If you have a sense for the amount of annual revenue each individual could theoretically produce, you can essentially treat their wages as a fixed cost up to the limit of that revenue, then model the incremental cost and margin impact of bringing on additional headcount. Is there any additional detail you can provide that might help provide guidance on developing a model?"
},
{
"docid": "186602",
"title": "",
"text": "Via www.socialsecurity.gov: As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted. These estimates reflect the intermediate assumptions of the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2009 Annual Trustees Report. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been making similar estimates for several years that tend to be somewhat more optimistic than the trustees' estimates principally because CBO assumes faster growth in labor productivity and real earnings levels for the future. Doesn't seem too optimistic from the program itself. Also, it is true that recessions end, but in our current state of being trillions of dollars in debt, does it look like things are on the upswing?"
},
{
"docid": "450765",
"title": "",
"text": "...funds received for the month of death and later must be returned. If the estate is bankrupt, as near as I can tell, the SSA is out of luck. (This applies to payment apart from that covered above.) If you need advice on something other than retirement insurance, a comprehensive list of applicable statutes and rulings is here."
},
{
"docid": "420529",
"title": "",
"text": "I assume US as mhoran_psprep edited, although I'm not sure IRS necessarily means US. (It definitely used to also include Britain's Inland Revenue, but they changed.) (US) Stockbrokers do not normally withhold on either dividends/interest/distributions or realized capital gains, especially since gains might be reduced or eliminated by later losses. (They can be required to apply backup withholding to dividends and interest; don't ask how I know :-) You are normally required to pay most of your tax during the year, defined as within 10% or $1000 whichever is more, by withholding and/or estimated payments. Thus if the tax on your income including your recent gain will exceed your withholding by 10% and $1000, you should either adjust your withholding or make an estimated payment or some combination, although even if you have a job the last week of December is too late for you to adjust withholding significantly, or even to make a timely estimated payment if 'earlier in the year' means in an earlier quarter as defined for tax (Jan-Mar, Apr-May, June-Aug, Sept-Dec). See https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estimated-taxes and for details its link to Publication 505. But a 'safe harbor' may apply since you say this is your first time to have capital gains. If you did not owe any income tax for last year (and were a citizen or resident), or (except very high earners) if you did owe tax and your withholding plus estimated payments this year is enough to pay last year's tax, you are exempt from the Form 2210 penalty and you have until the filing deadline (normally April 15 but this year April 18 due to weekend and holiday) to pay. The latter is likely if your job and therefore payroll income and withholding this year was the same or nearly the same as last year and there was no other big change other than the new capital gain. Also note that gains on investments held more than one year are classified as long-term and taxed at lower rates, which reduces the tax you will owe (all else equal) and thus the payments you need to make. But your wording 'bought and sold ... earlier this year' suggests your holding was not long-term, and short-term gains are taxed as 'ordinary' income. Added: if the state you live in has a state income tax similar considerations apply but to smaller amounts. TTBOMK all states tax capital gains (and other investment income, other than interest on exempt bonds), and don't necessarily give the lower rates for long-term gains. And all states I have lived in have 'must have withholding or estimated payments' rules generally similar to the Federal ones, though not identical."
},
{
"docid": "386745",
"title": "",
"text": "Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors."
},
{
"docid": "528316",
"title": "",
"text": "Your question is a complex one because knowledge of the investor's beliefs about the market is required. For almost any quantitative portfolio, one must have a good estimate of the expected return vector and covariance matrix of the assets in question. The expected return vector, in particular, is far from estimable. No one agrees on it and there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. In a world satisfying the conditions of the CAPM, you can bypass this problem because the main implication of the CAPM is that the market weights are optimal. In that case the answer to your question is that you should determine the market weights of the various assets and use those along with saving in a risk-free account or borrowing, depending on your risk tolerance. This portfolio has the added benefit that you don't need to rebalance much...the weights in your portfolio adjust at the same rate as the market weights. Any portfolio that has something besides this also includes some notion of expected return aside from CAPM fair pricing. The question for you, then, is whether you have such a notion. If you do, you can mix your information with the market weights to come up with a portfolio. This is what the Black-Litterman method does, for example: get the expected return vector implied by market weights and the covariance matrix, mix with your expected return vector, then use mean-variance optimization to come up with your final weights."
},
{
"docid": "31483",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different."
},
{
"docid": "499502",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's likely you don't have to make estimated tax payments if this is your first year of contracting (extra income), and your existing salary is already having taxes withheld. If you look at the 1040-ES: General Rule In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2014 if both of the following apply. This is easier to understand if you look at the worksheet. Look at line 14b/14c and the associated instructions. 14b is your required annual payment based on last year's tax. 14c is the lesser of that number and 14a, so 14b is your \"\"worst case\"\". 14c is the amount of tax you need to prepay (withholding counts as prepayment). I'm going to apply this to your situation based on my understanding, because it's not easy to parse:\""
},
{
"docid": "290862",
"title": "",
"text": "My basic rule of thumb is that if the the bill come from a government office of taxation, and that if you fail to pay the amount they can put a tax lien on the property it is a tax. for you the complication is in Pub530: Assessments for local benefits. You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Local benefits include the construction of streets, sidewalks, or water and sewer systems. You must add these amounts to the basis of your property. You can, however, deduct assessments (or taxes) for local benefits if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. An example is a charge to repair an existing sidewalk and any interest included in that charge. If only a part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot show what part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you cannot deduct any of it. An assessment for a local benefit may be listed as an item in your real estate tax bill. If so, use the rules in this section to find how much of it, if any, you can deduct. I have never seen a tax bill that said this amount is for new streets, and the rest i for things the IRS says you can deduct. The issue is that if the Center City tax bill is a separate line or a separate bill then does it count. I would go back to the first line of the quote from Pub 530: You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Then I would look at the quote from the CCD web site: The Center City District (CCD) is a business improvement district. Our mission is to keep Philadelphia's downtown, called Center City, clean, safe, beautiful and fun. We provide security, cleaning and promotional services that supplement, but do not replace, basic services provided by the City of Philadelphia and the fundamental responsibilities of property owners. CCD also makes physical improvements to the downtown, installing and maintaining lighting, > signs, banners, trees and landscape elements. and later on the same page: CCD directly bills and collects mandatory payments from properties in the district. CCD also receives voluntary contributions from the owners of tax-exempt properties that benefit from our services. The issues is that it is a business improvement district (BID), and you aren't a business: I did find this document from the city of Philadelphia explain how to establish a BID: If the nature of the BID is such that organizers wish to include residential properties within the district and make these properties subject to the assessment, it may make sense to assess these properties at a lower level than a commercial property, both because BID services and benefits are business-focused, and because owner-occupants often cannot treat NID assessments as tax-deductible business expenses, like commercial owners do. Care must be taken to ensure that the difference in commercial and residential assessment rates is equitable, and complies with the requirements of the CEIA. from the same document: Funds for BID programs and services are generated from a special assessment paid by the benefited property owners directly to the organization that manages the BID’s activities. (Note: many leases have a clause that allows property owners to pass the BID assessment on to their tenants.) Because they are authorized by the City of Philadelphia, the assessment levied by the BID becomes a legal obligation of the property owner and failure to pay can result in the filing of a lien. I have seen discussion that some BIDS can accept tax deductible donations. This means if a person itemizes they can deduct the donation. I would then feel comfortable deducting the tax because: If you can't deduct it that would mean the only people who can't deduct it are home owners. So deduct it. (keep in mind I am not a tax professional)"
},
{
"docid": "10882",
"title": "",
"text": "http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-q2-loss-narrower-estimates-113042878.html >Including the impact of Model S revenues deferred due to lease accounting, top line jumped 89.9% to $769.3 million in the quarter from $405.1 million a year ago. Revenues, however, lagged the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $802 million. >The year-over-year revenue growth was driven by higher vehicle deliveries. Tesla delivered 7,579 cars in the second quarter, surpassing the guidance of 7,500 deliveries and increasing more than 17% over the first quarter of 2014. The automaker also benefited from initiation of the delivery of powertrains to Daimler AG (DDAIF) for the Mercedes-Benz B Class Electric Drive, although the winding down of electric powertrain components sales to Toyota Motor Corp. (TM) for the RAV4 EV is hurting revenues. >Gross profit, including the impact of Model S gross profit deferred due to lease accounting and stock-based compensation expenses, amounted to $213.0 million in second-quarter 2014, against $100.5 million in the year-ago quarter. >Revenues (on a reported basis) from Automotive sales, jumped to $768.2 million in the quarter from $401.5 million a year ago. Reported revenues from Development services (producing electric vehicle powertrain components and systems for other automobile manufacturers) slumped to $1.1 million from $3.6 million a year ago. >Financial Position >Tesla had cash and cash equivalents of $2.7 billion as of Jun 30, 2014, compared with $845.9 million as Dec 31, 2013. Long-term debt was $2.4 billion as of Jun 30, 2014, versus $586.3 million as of Dec 31, 2013. >Cash flow from operating activities amounted to $57.1 million in the first half of 2014, compared with $28.8 million in the year-ago period. Capital expenditures increased to $317.0 million from $98.2 million in the first half of 2013. >Gigafactory Update >Tesla has signed a formal agreement with Panasonic Corp. (PCRFY) for partnership in the Gigafactory. Under the agreement, Panasonic will invest in production equipment for the manufacture of lithium-ion battery cells, while Tesla will invest in land, buildings and utilities for the Gigafactory as well as production equipment for battery module and pack production. Moreover, Tesla will be responsible for the management of the Gigafactory. Other partners will also be involved in the Gigafactory for manufacture of the required precursor materials. >In June, Tesla broke ground for the potential construction of the Gigafactory near Reno, NV. While the location of the Gigafactory has not been decided yet, Tesla is planning to hold ground-breaking ceremony for the factory at three sites to avoid any delay in construction. Construction work will begin at one of the three sites by the end of the year and will be wrapped up by 2017. >Outlook >Tesla expects to record a marginal adjusted profit in the third quarter of 2014. Production volume in the third quarter of 2014 is expected to be 9,000 cars, up 2.7% from 8,763 cars produced in the second quarter of 2014. This includes the impact of the two-week production shutdown at the Fremont factory for the transition to the new final assembly line, which is expected to result in production loss of about 2,000 cars in the third quarter. However, due to the enhanced factory capacity, Tesla expects production volume to increase to an average of 1,000 cars per week in the fourth quarter of 2014 from 800 cars at present. >Further, vehicle deliveries are expected to increase to 7,800 in the third quarter of 2014 from 7,579 cars in the second quarter. However, deliveries are expected to be lower than production due to increase in the number of vehicles in transit. Tesla also plans to lease about 300 vehicles in North America in the third quarter, which is expected to increase further in the fourth quarter. Further, the automaker anticipates to deliver more than 35,000 vehicles globally in 2014, up 55% over 2013. >Adjusted automotive gross margin, excluding ZEV credits, is expected to increase to 28% by the end of 2014. The company believes that declining parts prices and economies of scale will benefit its gross margin. >Operating expenses are expected to increase in the third quarter of 2014. The company believes that research and development expenses will increase 20% sequentially in the quarter. Selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses are projected to rise 15%. >Capital expenses for the year are expected to range between $750 million and $950 million, up from the previous projection of $650–$850 million. Tesla is investing heavily in increasing production capacity, development of Model S and Model X, the Gigafactory construction and expansion of sales, service and Supercharger infrastructure. Increasing revenue, increasing sales, increasing gross profits, increasing margins = increasing investments into the company for exponential growth. Baby you've never been risk taking in your life before?"
},
{
"docid": "127974",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax."
},
{
"docid": "100668",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no simple way to calculate how much house any given person can afford. In the answer keshlam gave, several handy rules of thumb are mentioned that are used as common screening devices to reject loans, but in every case further review is required to approve any loan. The 28% rule is the gold standard for estimating how much you can afford, but it is only an estimate; all the details (that you don't want to provide) are required to give you anything better than an estimate. In the spirit of JoeTaxpayer's answer I'm going to give you a number that you can multiply your gross income by for a good estimate, but my estimate is based on a 15 year mortgage. Assuming a 15 year mortgage with a 3% interest rate, it will cost $690.58 per $100,000 borrowed. So to take those numbers and wrap it up in a bow, you can multiply your income by 3.38 and have the amount of mortgage that most people can afford. If you have a down-payment saved add it to the number above for the total price of the home you can buy after closing costs are added in. Property taxes and insurance rates vary widely, and those are often rolled into the mortgage payment to be paid from an escrow account, banks may consider all of these factors in their calculators but they may not be transparent. If you can't afford to pay it in 15 years, you really can't afford it. Compare the same $100k loan: In 30 years at 4% you pay about $477/month with a total of about $72k in interest over the life of the loan. In 15 years at 3% you pay about $691/month but the total interest is only $24k, and you are out of the loan in half of the time. The equity earned in the first 5 years is also signficantly different with 28.5% for the 15 year loan vs. 9.5% on the 30 year loan. Without straying too far into general economics, 15 year loans would also have averted the mortgage crisis of 2008, because more people would have had enough equity that they wouldn't have walked out on their homes when there was a price correction."
},
{
"docid": "325075",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no generic formula as such, but you can work it out using all known incomes and expenses and by making some educated assuption. You should generaly know your buying costs, which include the purchase price, legal fees, taxes (in Australia we have Stamp Duty, which is a large state based tax when you purchase a property). Other things to consider include estimates for any repairs and/or renovations. Also, you should look at the long term growth in your area and use this as an estimate of your potential growth over the period you wish to hold the property, and estimate the agent fees if you were to sell, and the depreciation on the building. These things, including the agent fees when selling and building depreciation, will all be added or deducted to your cost base to determine the amount of capital gain when and if you sell the property. You then need to multiply this gain by the capital gains tax rate to determine the capital gains tax you may have to pay. From all the items above you will be able to estimate the net capital gain (after all taxes) you could expect to make on the property over the period you are looking to hold it for. In regards to holding and renting the property, things you will need to consider include the rent, the long term growth of rent in your area, and all the expenses including, loan fees and interest, insurance, rates, land tax, and an estimate of the annual maintenance cost per year. Also, you would need to consider any depreciation deductions you can claim. Other things you will need to consider, is the change in these values as time goes by, and provide an estimate for these in your calculations. Any increase in the value of land will increase the amount of rates and the land tax you pay, and generally your insurance and maintenance costs will increase with time. However, your interest and mortgage repayments will reduce over time. Will your rent increases cover your increases in the expenses. From all the items above you should be able to work out an estimate of your net rental gain or loss for each year. Again do this for the number of years you are looking to hold the property for and then sum up the total to give a net profit or loss. If there is a net loss from the income, then you need to consider if the net capital gain will cover these losses and still give you a reasonable return over the period you will own the property. Below is a sample calculation showing most of the variables I have discussed."
},
{
"docid": "487728",
"title": "",
"text": "I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above."
},
{
"docid": "509936",
"title": "",
"text": "To your secondary question: Appropriately consider all estimated numbers involved with keeping the house compared to your closest estimate of what the home could sell for. Weigh out the pros and cons yourself as a stranger will not be able to 100% appreciate what you value and dislike. Remember to include insurances, taxes, HOA(s), and the actual mortgage payment. Depending on how you also plan to rent out the property, include whichever utilities you intend to cover (if any). There will also be costs for property management and upkeep as things will break overtime and tenants will not hesitate to get you (or your management) to fix them, either way that means you are paying. I would also keep in mind while homes typically appreciate in value there is a higher risk with tenants for the value to depreciate to damages and poor upkeep. There are increased legal risks to renting, so be sure you have properly vetted whichever management you are going with. In extreme circumstances you also could be required to retain an attorney to defend yourself again litigation because whichever management team you hire will most likely defend themselves and not include you in that umbrella. My family lives in the LA area as well and a judge refused to throw out an obvious frivolous suit when my parents attempted to rent out a house. The possible renters after signing the main paperwork never showed to finish a second set of documents for renting. Parents immediately declined to rent to these people as they missed something so important without any explanation and they sued claiming racism, emotional damages, and some other really crazy things despite my parents never having met them (first meeting was between property management and renters only). Personally and professionally, I would only suggest renting our the place and not selling if you can turn a profit after all the above mentioned costs. If renters are only paying to keep the property in the black you have yourself a non-earning asset which WILL be damaged over time and require repairs which will come out of your pocket. Also, while the property is unoccupied you also must remember it is not earning at that time. Much of this may sound obvious, overcautious, etc... I simply wish to provide my family's experience to help you in making your decisions. Best of luck with your endeavor. Edit: Also, you will be required to report all earned rental income on your taxes. They will fall under the Schedule E and possibly K-1 area. I would strongly recommend consulting with an actual accountant about the impacts to you."
},
{
"docid": "268294",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If they directly paid for your education, it is possible that it wouldn't count as taxable income to you according to the IRS, depending on the amount: If you receive educational assistance benefits from your employer under an educational assistance program, you can exclude up to $5,250 of those benefits each year. This means your employer should not include those benefits with your wages, tips, and other compensation shown in box 1 of your Form W-2. This also means that you do not have to include the benefits on your income tax return. source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch11.html However, your situation is a bit trickier since they are sort of retroactively paying for your education. I'd think the answer is \"\"Maybe\"\" and you should consult a tax professional since it is a gray area. Update: On further research, I'm going to downgrade that \"\"Maybe\"\" to \"\"Probably not, but hopefully soon.\"\" The reason I am doing so is that there is a bill in Congress specifically to allow what you are asking, which presumes that you currently can't do this. The Bill is HR Bill 395 \"\"The Student Loan Employment Benefits Act of 2013\"\" sponsored by rep Steve Israel (D). It has co-sponsors from both parties, so that is promising for it's passage, I suppose. However, it appears to be still early in the legislative process. If this issue is near/dear to your heart maybe you should call your congressman. Summary of the Bill: (from govtrack.us) Student Loan Employment Benefits Act of 2013 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from the gross income of an employee amounts paid by an employer under a student loan payment assistance program. Limits the amount of such exclusion to $5,000 in a taxable year. Requires an employer student loan payment assistance program to be a separate written plan of an employer to provide employees with student loan payment assistance. Defines \"\"student loan payment assistance\"\" as the payment of principal or interest on any indebtedness incurred by an employee solely to pay qualified higher education expenses which are paid or incurred within a reasonable time before or after such indebtedness was incurred and are attributable to education furnished during a period in which such employee was a student eligible for federal financial assistance.\""
}
] |
6262 | Help required on estimating SSA benefit amounts | [
{
"docid": "26799",
"title": "",
"text": "There has been an abundance of articles in recent years which make it fairly clear that many participants in the Social Security system-- especially those who have started contributing recently, and going forward from that-- will experience negative rates of return. In other words, they will put in more than they will get out. Some examples of such articles: Time Magazine: But it is now official: Social Security is a lousy investment for the average worker. People retiring today will be among the first generation of workers to pay more in Social Security taxes than they receive in benefits over the course of their lives, according to a new analysis by the Associated Press. That AP piece, referenced by Time: People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. A piece which appeared in DailyFinance (includes a helpful graphic summary): 10 Myths About Social Security: Myth 4: Social Security Is a Good Deal for Today’s WorkersEven if there were no reduction in benefits or increase in taxes—an impossibility given Social Security’s looming financing shortfalls—Social Security is an extremely bad investment for most young workers. In fact, according to a study by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, most young workers will actually receive a negative return on their Social Security taxes— they will get less in benefits than they paid in taxes. Some studies indicate that a 30- year-old two-earner couple with average income will lose as much as $173,500. That actual loss does not even consider the opportunity cost, what workers might have earned if they had been able to invest their taxes in real assets that yield a positive return. In fact, a study by financial analyst William Shipman demonstrates that, if a 25-year-old worker were able to privately invest the money he or she currently pays in Social Security taxes, the worker would receive retirement benefits three to six times higher than under Social Security. Has that answered your question?"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "114835",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however."
},
{
"docid": "536849",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\""
},
{
"docid": "421512",
"title": "",
"text": "It's past midnight so we'll continue this tomorrow. Just two things for now: 1 funny how you picked the highest estimate for the US and the lowest estimate for the UK 2 if anyone expresses wishful thinking it's you. None of the benefits you mentioned will happen. I live in a country with UH. You'll still have the same problems, except that you get a hefty tax increase on top and end up shoving 50-60% of your income down the state's throat in addition."
},
{
"docid": "53665",
"title": "",
"text": "The IRS no longer requires that employers submit all W4 forms, but they can request a W4 for an employee at any time, and putting false information on your W4 is still a punishable offense. I agree that having a return is like giving the Treasury Department an interest-free loan for the year, but unfortunately paying the appropriate amount of withholding tax is required. There is some ambiguous information regarding an employer adjusting the amount of withholding, but it seems to mean that they can withhold more than the estimated rate, but never less than what is calculated using the deductions on your W4. See the link for more details: IRS Tax Withholding"
},
{
"docid": "431622",
"title": "",
"text": "You have several sources of money: Scholarships not directly from the university. Some organizations have scholarships based on your area of study, your nationality, or your industry. Some require you to show that you need the money, others are based on your grades. The university can help you find these scholarship, or at least point you towards reliable listings. Don't pay somebody/some company to help you find them. Your employer. Some companies will pay for some classes. They may limit the types of the classes, and the amount of money. They may also require you to stay as an employee for a specific number of years in return for the money. If you quit before that time,they can ask you to refund the money. loans. I don't know what loan programs are available for international students."
},
{
"docid": "268294",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If they directly paid for your education, it is possible that it wouldn't count as taxable income to you according to the IRS, depending on the amount: If you receive educational assistance benefits from your employer under an educational assistance program, you can exclude up to $5,250 of those benefits each year. This means your employer should not include those benefits with your wages, tips, and other compensation shown in box 1 of your Form W-2. This also means that you do not have to include the benefits on your income tax return. source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p970/ch11.html However, your situation is a bit trickier since they are sort of retroactively paying for your education. I'd think the answer is \"\"Maybe\"\" and you should consult a tax professional since it is a gray area. Update: On further research, I'm going to downgrade that \"\"Maybe\"\" to \"\"Probably not, but hopefully soon.\"\" The reason I am doing so is that there is a bill in Congress specifically to allow what you are asking, which presumes that you currently can't do this. The Bill is HR Bill 395 \"\"The Student Loan Employment Benefits Act of 2013\"\" sponsored by rep Steve Israel (D). It has co-sponsors from both parties, so that is promising for it's passage, I suppose. However, it appears to be still early in the legislative process. If this issue is near/dear to your heart maybe you should call your congressman. Summary of the Bill: (from govtrack.us) Student Loan Employment Benefits Act of 2013 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to exclude from the gross income of an employee amounts paid by an employer under a student loan payment assistance program. Limits the amount of such exclusion to $5,000 in a taxable year. Requires an employer student loan payment assistance program to be a separate written plan of an employer to provide employees with student loan payment assistance. Defines \"\"student loan payment assistance\"\" as the payment of principal or interest on any indebtedness incurred by an employee solely to pay qualified higher education expenses which are paid or incurred within a reasonable time before or after such indebtedness was incurred and are attributable to education furnished during a period in which such employee was a student eligible for federal financial assistance.\""
},
{
"docid": "388713",
"title": "",
"text": "As a new (very!) small business, the IRS has lots of advice and information for you. Start at https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed and be sure you have several pots of coffee or other appropriate aid against somnolence. By default a single-member LLC is 'disregarded' for tax purposes (at least for Federal, and generally states follow Federal although I don't know Mass. specifically), although it does have other effects. If you go this route you simply include the business income and expenses on Schedule C as part of your individual return on 1040, and the net SE income is included along with your other income (if any) in computing your tax. TurboTax or similar software should handle this for you, although you may need a premium version that costs a little more. You can 'elect' to have the LLC taxed as a corporation by filing form 8832, see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/limited-liability-company-llc . In principle you are supposed to do this when the entity is 'formed', but in practice AIUI if you do it by the end of the year they won't care at all, and if you do it after the end of the year but before or with your first affected return you qualify for automatic 'relief'. However, deciding how to divide the business income/profits into 'reasonable pay' to yourself versus 'dividends' is more complicated, and filling out corporation tax returns in addition to your individual return (which is still required) is more work, in addition to the work and cost of filing and reporting the LLC itself to your state of choice. Unless/until you make something like $50k-100k a year this probably isn't worth it. 1099 Reporting. Stripe qualifies as a 'payment network' and under a recent law payment networks must annually report to IRS (and copy to you) on form 1099-K if your account exceeds certain thresholds; see https://support.stripe.com/questions/will-i-receive-a-1099-k-and-what-do-i-do-with-it . Note you are still legally required to report and pay tax on your SE income even if you aren't covered by 1099-K (or other) reporting. Self-employment tax. As a self-employed person (if the LLC is disregarded) you have to pay 'SE' tax that is effectively equivalent to the 'FICA' taxes that would be paid by your employer and you as an employee combined. This is 12.4% for Social Security unless/until your total earned income exceeds a cap (for 2017 $127,200, adjusted yearly for inflation), and 2.9% for Medicare with no limit (plus 'Additional Medicare' tax if you exceed a higher threshold and it isn't 'repealed and replaced'). If the LLC elects corporation status it has to pay you reasonable wages for your services, and withhold+pay FICA on those wages like any other employer. Estimated payments. You are required to pay most of your individual income tax, and SE tax if applicable, during the year (generally 90% of your tax or your tax minus $1,000 whichever is less). Most wage-earners don't notice this because it happens automatically through payroll withholding, but as self-employed you are responsible for making sufficient and timely estimated payments, and will owe a penalty if you don't. However, since this is your first year you may have a 'safe harbor'; if you also have income from an employer (reported on W-2, with withholding) and that withholding is sufficent to pay last year's tax, then you are exempt from the 'underpayment' penalty for this year. If you elect corporation status then the corporation (which is really just you) must always make timely payments of withheld amounts, according to one of several different schedules that may apply depending on the amounts; I believe it also must make estimated payments for its own liability, if any, but I'm not familiar with that part."
},
{
"docid": "127974",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax."
},
{
"docid": "117877",
"title": "",
"text": "Ultimately, you are the one that is responsible for your tax filings and your payments (It's all linked to your SSN, after all). If this fee/interest is the result of a filing error, and you went through a preparing company which assumes liability for their own errors, then you should speak to them. They will likely correct this and pay the fees. On the other hand, if this is the result of not making quarterly payments, then you are responsible for it. (Source: Comptroller of Maryland Site) If you [...] do not have Maryland income taxes withheld by an employer, you can make quarterly estimated tax payments as part of a pay-as-you-go plan. If your employer does withhold Maryland taxes from your pay, you may still be required to make quarterly estimated income tax payments if you develop a tax liability that exceeds the amount withheld by your employer by more than $500. From this watered-down public-facing resource, it seems like you'll get hit with fees for not making quarterly payments if your tax liability exceeds $500 beyond what is withheld (currently: $0)."
},
{
"docid": "84996",
"title": "",
"text": "You must pay your taxes at the quarterly intervals. For most people the withholding done by their employer satisfies this requirement. However, if your income does not have any withholding (or sufficient), then you must file quarterly estimated tax payments. Note that if you have a second job that does withhold, then you can adjust your W4 to request further withholding there and possibly reduce the need for estimated payments. Estimated tax payments also come into play with large investment earnings. The amount that you need to prepay the IRS is impacted by the safe harbor rule, which I am sure others will provide the exact details on."
},
{
"docid": "274937",
"title": "",
"text": "1040ES uses the smaller number because that's what triggers the penalties. (That is, you are penalized if what you prepay is less than your total 2013 liability and less than 90% of your 2014 liability.) However, estimated taxes are just estimates. If you pay too little, you could face a penalty, but there's no penalty for paying too much -- you'll just get a refund as usual. It seems that your concern stems from the fact that this is the first year you're in this tax situation and so you're unsure if your estimates are accurate. In your comment to Pete Belford's answer, you also indicated you aren't worried about being unable to pay, but only about accidentally underpaying. In this case, you could just err on the side of caution and pay more than 1040ES says you owe. (You don't actually file the 1040ES, the calculations are just for your own use.) For instance, you could prepay based on the higher of your two estimates, if you can afford it; or, if you can't afford that much, hedge the estimate payments up a bit to an amount you can afford that is closer to the higher estimate. At the end of the year if you paid too much you can get a refund as usual. After this year, you will presumably have a better sense of your income and your tax liability, and can make more accurate estimates for next year."
},
{
"docid": "557237",
"title": "",
"text": "Closing your oldest revolving account will lower your average age of accounts and hurt your score. No ifs, ands, or buts. The amount it drops is hard to tell, and it may only be a few points if your other cards are fairly old as well. While the FICO scoring algorithm is proprietary and hard to predict, you can use the official FICO Simulator to estimate the impact. Based on the information you provided (5+ cards, oldest card 5 years), your estimate is 750-800. Performing the same estimate and only changing the number of cards and age (2-4 cards, oldest card 2-4 years), the score estimate drops to 735-785. Both of these estimates assume you have 9% or less utilization. You can probably estimate that your score will drop at least 15 points. However, it may not matter to you whether your score is maximized. Once you get above a certain FICO score, it doesn't matter. For example, I recently refinanced a vehicle and asked the loan officer about their lowest APR, and found out that they required a 780 FICO for it. Kind of like the difference between getting a 91 or a 99 in a class, an A is an A. Some other factors you may want to consider before you make your choice:"
},
{
"docid": "250084",
"title": "",
"text": "What you need to do is to reduce the withholding from your wages, or pay a smaller amount in your quarterly payments of estimated tax (if you are self-employed). To reduce withholding from wages, fill out a new W4 form (available from your employer's HR department). There is a worksheet in the form that will help you figure out what to write on the various lines. As a single person, you are entitled to claim an exemption for yourself, and if you have not been claiming that exemption, doing so will reduce your withholding, and presumably your tax refund."
},
{
"docid": "290862",
"title": "",
"text": "My basic rule of thumb is that if the the bill come from a government office of taxation, and that if you fail to pay the amount they can put a tax lien on the property it is a tax. for you the complication is in Pub530: Assessments for local benefits. You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Local benefits include the construction of streets, sidewalks, or water and sewer systems. You must add these amounts to the basis of your property. You can, however, deduct assessments (or taxes) for local benefits if they are for maintenance, repair, or interest charges related to those benefits. An example is a charge to repair an existing sidewalk and any interest included in that charge. If only a part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you must be able to show the amount of that part to claim the deduction. If you cannot show what part of the assessment is for maintenance, repair, or interest charges, you cannot deduct any of it. An assessment for a local benefit may be listed as an item in your real estate tax bill. If so, use the rules in this section to find how much of it, if any, you can deduct. I have never seen a tax bill that said this amount is for new streets, and the rest i for things the IRS says you can deduct. The issue is that if the Center City tax bill is a separate line or a separate bill then does it count. I would go back to the first line of the quote from Pub 530: You cannot deduct amounts you pay for local benefits that tend to increase the value of your property. Then I would look at the quote from the CCD web site: The Center City District (CCD) is a business improvement district. Our mission is to keep Philadelphia's downtown, called Center City, clean, safe, beautiful and fun. We provide security, cleaning and promotional services that supplement, but do not replace, basic services provided by the City of Philadelphia and the fundamental responsibilities of property owners. CCD also makes physical improvements to the downtown, installing and maintaining lighting, > signs, banners, trees and landscape elements. and later on the same page: CCD directly bills and collects mandatory payments from properties in the district. CCD also receives voluntary contributions from the owners of tax-exempt properties that benefit from our services. The issues is that it is a business improvement district (BID), and you aren't a business: I did find this document from the city of Philadelphia explain how to establish a BID: If the nature of the BID is such that organizers wish to include residential properties within the district and make these properties subject to the assessment, it may make sense to assess these properties at a lower level than a commercial property, both because BID services and benefits are business-focused, and because owner-occupants often cannot treat NID assessments as tax-deductible business expenses, like commercial owners do. Care must be taken to ensure that the difference in commercial and residential assessment rates is equitable, and complies with the requirements of the CEIA. from the same document: Funds for BID programs and services are generated from a special assessment paid by the benefited property owners directly to the organization that manages the BID’s activities. (Note: many leases have a clause that allows property owners to pass the BID assessment on to their tenants.) Because they are authorized by the City of Philadelphia, the assessment levied by the BID becomes a legal obligation of the property owner and failure to pay can result in the filing of a lien. I have seen discussion that some BIDS can accept tax deductible donations. This means if a person itemizes they can deduct the donation. I would then feel comfortable deducting the tax because: If you can't deduct it that would mean the only people who can't deduct it are home owners. So deduct it. (keep in mind I am not a tax professional)"
},
{
"docid": "222392",
"title": "",
"text": "\"H.R. basically consults Publication 15 (this is the link to 2015) to determine how much to hold, based on filing status, exemptions, and pay amount. What's described here is a form of estimation, or, in other words, H.R. withholds what would be your actual taxes, dividing across the number of paychecks you receive. Assuming your gross pay and exemptions do not change, this usually results in a zero-sum for taxes owed (you will receive nothing, and owe nothing). As you can see from the charts, the year is basically broken down into equal tax units that reflect how much you would owe if you worked at that bracket all year. This estimation works best when you have steady hours from check to check. In other words, your taxes are based on the estimate of what you'd make if you earned that much all year, scaled down to the time frame (e.g. 1/52 if you are paid weekly, or 1/26 if you paid biweekly). They do not go \"\"up\"\" near the end of the year, because they're estimated in advance. You don't move up a tax bracket, but are instead taxed at a particular bracket every paycheck. There's also other forms of estimation mentioned there, but basically follow the same scheme. Note that all estimation forms are just that-- estimates. It's best to use a calculator and compare your current taxes whenever a significant change occurs-- a raise, a new child, getting married or divorced, etc. You'll want to be able to alter your exemptions so that enough taxes are coming out. That's also the reason for the \"\"withhold extra\"\" box, so that you can avoid owing. For example, if you're making $44 a week for the first 26 weeks, and then you make $764 a week for the second 26 weeks of the year, you'll end up with an actual tax liability of $2,576.6, but end up paying only $2,345.20. You would owe $231.40. Of course, the actual math is a lot more complicated if you're an employee paid by the minute, for example, or you have a child, go to college, etc. Paychecks that vary wildly, like $10,000 one week and $2,000 the next tend to have the hardest-to-predict estimates (e.g. jobs with big commission payouts). You should avoid living check-to-check with jobs that pay this way, because you'll probably end up owing taxes. Conversely, if you've done your estimates right and you're paid salary or exactly the same number of hours every week, you'll find that the taxes are much easier to predict and you can usually easily create a refund situation simply by having the correct exemptions on your check. So, in summation, if your check falls in the 25% category (which is, of course, 25% above the tax bracket break point), you're already paying the correct amount, and no further drop in your check would be expected.\""
},
{
"docid": "543686",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Because it ignores several important facts, namely: A) The base value from infrastructure is derived on a per-capita basis. It is a \"\"fixed cost\"\" as opposed to a variable one. In other words, roads are just as useful to me as they are to you regardless of my net worth. A tank, a missile, a police officer protects me the same as it does anyone else. B) As a percentage of income, infrastructure is far more valuable to low-income individuals than high-income individuals. A simple example: if I have $5M in net worth, I can invest it in the stock market and stay home. If you don't have that option, you need to go to work and that will likely require roads. I won't be taking unemployment benefits, but you are far more likely to. And so on. C) The activities of business owners generate massive tax revenues. These far outweigh their personal utility from infrastructure. D) Society captures the majority of individual commercial efforts (estimates vary, but typically 85%). In other words, if I generate $10.00 of value as an entrepreneur, I will realistically be able to capture only $1.50 of that. The \"\"infrastructure\"\" argument has been shamelessly used to fool low and middle income voters. The truth is that infrastructure benefits these voters (and the government) far more than it does wealthy individuals.\""
},
{
"docid": "218501",
"title": "",
"text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April."
},
{
"docid": "120384",
"title": "",
"text": "I've read a study about this. If you have twice the generation capacity in renewables (wind/solar) and can store 20% of your yearly consumption, then you are fine. So let's calculate this for the average americal household (4500kWh/year): * You need to be able to generate 9000kWh/year, this requires a 6kW solar installation (Arizona), estimated at $ 15'000. * You need to de able to store 1000kWh, this requires 70 Tesla powerwalls for $6000 each, grand total of $ 420'000. So even here, storage will kill you financially. References: * Study: http://euanmearns.com/the-quest-for-100-renewables-can-curtailment-replace-storage/ * Average US household consumption: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Energy/Electricity/Consumption-by-households-per-capita#2005 * Arizona solar example: https://solarpowerrocks.com/buying-solar/how-to-calculate-the-amount-of-kilowatt-hours-kwh-your-solar-panel-system-will-produce/"
},
{
"docid": "357934",
"title": "",
"text": "I've found the systems that seem to work. Firstly, you need to find how much money is required to pay for the withdrawals after retirement, while still accruing interest. I couldn't seem to do this with an equation, but this bit of javascript worked: yearsToLast: Number of years of yearly withdrawals yearlyWithdrawal: Amount to withdraw each year interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest Now that we have how much is required at the beginning of the retirement, to figure out how much to add yearly to hit this mark, you'd use: amount: Previously found required amount to reach interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest yearsSaving: Number of years saving till amount needs to be hit I hope this helps some other poor soul, because I could find squat on how to do this. Max"
}
] |
6262 | Help required on estimating SSA benefit amounts | [
{
"docid": "390877",
"title": "",
"text": "The social security administration has a webpage to get your Social Security estimate. It replaces the yearly estimate they used to mail everybody. It shows the amount you paid for social security and medicare and what they estimate you will receive at your retirement age. They also discuss disability benefits. Everybody should do this every year. Though it does take a few months to get the previous years numbers updated into the system. If you notice a problem with the money they think you paid into the system in a particular year, you can send them an old W-2 and get the numbers corrected."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "571920",
"title": "",
"text": "\"No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for \"\"interest\"\" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun). Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is written or his legal representative may bring an action in the district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "240931",
"title": "",
"text": "Students at college employed by the college are exempt from the FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare). You are not exempt from federal and state income taxes, but if you are a part time employee making a small amount of money, you probably aren't projected to be paid enough between now and the end of the year to trigger the withholding. If you are concerned that your tax burden for the year will require you to send in money at tax time next year, you can estimate what your taxes will be, and if you determine that you will owe too much, you can fill out a new W-4 form with your HR department and request that additional tax be withheld."
},
{
"docid": "90238",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is that it's never the right time to buy an emerging technology. As long as the technology is emerging, you should expect that newer revisions will be both better and less expensive. With solar, specifically, there are some tax credits to help the early adopters that may help you on the cost/benefit analysis, but in the end, you still have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs now, and if not, whether that will change in the near future. For me, part of the solar benefit is the ability to generate electricity when the power goes out. That option does require local battery storage, however. One of the benefits of using Musk's solar tiles instead of actual slate is the weight of the quartz tiles which is much lower than the weight of real slate. In many cases a slate roof is heavy enough to require major reinforcement of the roof trusses before installation. The lower weight also saves significantly on shipping costs. This is where Musk can lower costs enough to be competitive to some of the materials he hope to compete with."
},
{
"docid": "536849",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've done various side work over the years -- computer consulting, writing, and I briefly had a video game company -- so I've gone through most of this. Disclaimer: I have never been audited, which may mean that everything I put on my tax forms looked plausible to the IRS and so is probably at least generally right, but it also means that the IRS has never put their stamp of approval on my tax forms. So that said ... 1: You do not need to form an LLC to be able to claim business expenses. Whether you have any expenses or not, you will have to complete a schedule C. On this form are places for expenses in various categories. Note that the categories are the most common type of expenses, there's an \"\"other\"\" space if you have something different. If you have any property that is used both for the business and also for personal use, you must calculate a business use percentage. For example if you bought a new printer and 60% of the time you use it for the business and 40% of the time you use it for personal stuff, then 60% of the cost is tax deductible. In general the IRS expects you to calculate the percentage based on amount of time used for business versus personal, though you are allowed to use other allocation formulas. Like for a printer I think you'd get away with number of pages printed for each. But if the business use is not 100%, you must keep records to justify the percentage. You can't just say, \"\"Oh, I think business use must have been about 3/4 of the time.\"\" You have to have a log where you write down every time you use it and whether it was business or personal. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of business use of cars and computers, because these are things that are readily used for personal purposes. If you own a copper mine and you buy a mine-boring machine, odds are you aren't going to take that home to dig shafts in your backyard. But a computer can easily be used to play video games or send emails to friends and relatives and lots of things that have nothing to do with a business. So if you're going to claim a computer or a car, be prepared to justify it. You can claim office use of your home if you have one or more rooms or designated parts of a room that are used \"\"regularly and exclusively\"\" for business purposes. That is, if you turn the family room into an office, you can claim home office expenses. But if, like me, you sit on the couch to work but at other times you sit on the couch to watch TV, then the space is not used \"\"exclusively\"\" for business purposes. Also, the IRS is very suspicious of home office deductions. I've never tried to claim it. It's legal, just make sure you have all your ducks in a row if you claim it. Skip 2 for the moment. 3: Yes, you must pay taxes on your business income. If you have not created an LLC or a corporation, then your business income is added to your wage income to calculate your taxes. That is, if you made, say, $50,000 salary working for somebody else and $10,000 on your side business, then your total income is $60,000 and that's what you pay taxes on. The total amount you pay in income taxes will be the same regardless of whether 90% came from salary and 10% from the side business or the other way around. The rates are the same, it's just one total number. If the withholding on your regular paycheck is not enough to cover the total taxes that you will have to pay, then you are required by law to pay estimated taxes quarterly to make up the difference. If you don't, you will be required to pay penalties, so you don't want to skip on this. Basically you are supposed to be withholding from yourself and sending this in to the government. It's POSSIBLE that this won't be an issue. If you're used to getting a big refund, and the refund is more than what the tax on your side business will come to, then you might end up still getting a refund, just a smaller one. But you don't want to guess about this. Get the tax forms and figure out the numbers. I think -- and please don't rely on this, check on it -- that the law says that you don't pay a penalty if the total tax that was withheld from your paycheck plus the amount you paid in estimated payments is more than the tax you owed last year. So like lets say that this year -- just to make up some numbers -- your employer withheld $4,000 from your paychecks. At the end of the year you did your taxes and they came to $3,000, so you got a $1,000 refund. This year your employer again withholds $4,000 and you paid $0 in estimated payments. Your total tax on your salary plus your side business comes to $4,500. You owe $500, but you won't have to pay a penalty, because the $4,000 withheld is more than the $3,000 that you owed last year. But if next year you again don't make estimated payment, so you again have $4,000 withheld plus $0 estimated and then you owe $5,000 in taxes, you will have to pay a penalty, because your withholding was less than what you owed last year. To you had paid $500 in estimated payments, you'd be okay. You'd still owe $500, but you wouldn't owe a penalty, because your total payments were more than the previous year's liability. Clear as mud? Don't forget that you probably will also owe state income tax. If you have a local income tax, you'll owe that too. Scott-McP mentioned self-employment tax. You'll owe that, too. Note that self-employment tax is different from income tax. Self employment tax is just social security tax on self-employed people. You're probably used to seeing the 7-whatever-percent it is these days withheld from your paycheck. That's really only half your social security tax, the other half is not shown on your pay stub because it is not subtracted from your salary. If you're self-employed, you have to pay both halves, or about 15%. You file a form SE with your income taxes to declare it. 4: If you pay your quarterly estimated taxes, well the point of \"\"estimated\"\" taxes is that it's supposed to be close to the amount that you will actually owe next April 15. So if you get it at least close, then you shouldn't owe a lot of money in April. (I usually try to arrange my taxes so that I get a modest refund -- don't loan the government a lot of money, but don't owe anything April 15 either.) Once you take care of any business expenses and taxes, what you do with the rest of the money is up to you, right? Though if you're unsure of how to spend it, let me know and I'll send you the address of my kids' colleges and you can donate it to their tuition fund. I think this would be a very worthy and productive use of your money. :-) Back to #2. I just recently acquired a financial advisor. I can't say what a good process for finding one is. This guy is someone who goes to my church and who hijacked me after Bible study one day to make his sales pitch. But I did talk to him about his fees, and what he told me was this: If I have enough money in an investment account, then he gets a commission from the investment company for bringing the business to them, and that's the total compensation he gets from me. That commission comes out of the management fees they charge, and those management fees are in the same ballpark as the fees I was paying for private investment accounts, so basically he is not costing me anything. He's getting his money from the kickbacks. He said that if I had not had enough accumulated assets, he would have had to charge me an hourly fee. I didn't ask how much that was. Whew, hadn't meant to write such a long answer!\""
},
{
"docid": "158136",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The current tax regime? Not sure if you are being serious or facetious, but: [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) >If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** In contrast, corporations don't pay taxes on profits earned abroad until repatriation [here](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/news/economy/corporate-taxes-inversion/index.html), [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/business/economy/corporate-tax-report.html), [here](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits/). So guess what they NEVER do? This is why literally every large US multi-national corporate \"\"person\"\" pays next to nothing in taxes. It is quite obvious that this is a violation of the spirit if not the letter of tax law. That simple fix would wipe out massive amounts of government debt and force multi-national corporations and their shareholders to become engaged stake holders in the efficiency of government. But if, unlike W-2 paid human counterparts, you can dodge all taxation, \"\"Who cares if the government is using funds efficiently?\"\" That is incentive to actually game the system to force the government into wasteful spending because the subsequent fallout of increased taxation and/or failure of the state can be dodged without consequence.\""
},
{
"docid": "250766",
"title": "",
"text": "The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal."
},
{
"docid": "20830",
"title": "",
"text": "Moody's came out with an analysis today saying the requirement could be slightly good for for-profit hospitals (Bad-debt charges will decline. The expansion of healthcare coverage under the law will lessen for-profit hospital operators’ exposure to bad debts, which in turn will improve margins and cash flow. However, we expect that the growth rate of Medicare reimbursements will also slow down, offsetting the benefit of lower bad-debt expense and making the overall credit impact of the ruling neutral to slightly positive), negative for pharmaceutical cos. (Pharmaceutical companies will continue to pay for the full adoption of the Affordable Care Act in the form of higher rebates to the government for Medicaid drug costs, discounts to seniors covered under Medicare Part D drug plans and a new industry fee) and slightly negative for medical device firms (Beginning Jan. 1, 2013, US medical-device product sales will be subject to a 2.3% excise tax; the excise tax will be tax-deductible, resulting in an estimated effective tax rate of 1.5% on US device revenues)."
},
{
"docid": "272987",
"title": "",
"text": "If I were you I would educate myself better on the ins and outs of employment law. Apparently not knowing all the details has already cost you substantial amount of money. [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefits-contesting-employees-claim-30348.html) Of course the details can vary quite a bit by jurisdiction. Please consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment law who can help you protect yourself in the future."
},
{
"docid": "599485",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two types of insurance, which causes some confusion. Social Security Disability Insurance (which you indicate you have) is insurance you can receive benefit from if you earn enough \"\"work credits\"\" (payroll taxes) prior to your disability onset. It is not a needs-based program. Supplemental Security Income is a need-based program which does not consider your work history. To qualify for this, your total assets need to be lower than some threshold and your family income also below some threshold. If you inherit a home, or money, I doubt this would jeopardize your SSDI qualification, since your qualification was based on a disabling condition and work history. If you inherit an income property, which you manage (i.e. you become a landlord), this may jeopardize your claim that you are unable to work. Even if you are not making an \"\"income\"\" as the landlord, but the work your are performing is deemed to have some \"\"value\"\" this too could jeopardize your claim. All of this can be very complicated, and there are some excellent references on the web including SSA website, and some other related websites. Finally, if you become able to work while on SSDI, your benefit may/will end depending on the level of work you are able to perform. But just because you are able to work again does not mean you need to repay past benefits received (assuming your condition has not been falsified). Your local social security office, or the social security main office both offer telephone support and can also answer questions regarding your concern. Here are a couple relevant links:\""
},
{
"docid": "510219",
"title": "",
"text": "I recognize you are probably somewhere in the middle of various steps here... but I'd start and go through one-by-one in a disciplined way. That helps to cut through the overwhelming torrent of information that's out there. Here is my start at a general checklist: others can feel free to edit it or add their input. How 'much' house would you like to buy in terms of $$$ and bedrooms/sq ft. You can start pretty general here, but the idea is to figure out if you can actually afford a brand new 4bd/3ba 2,500 sq ft house (upwards of $500K in your neck of the woods according to trulia.com). Or maybe with your current resources you'll be looking at something like a townhome that is more entry-level but still yours. Some might recommend that this is a good time to talk to any significant others/whomevers and understand/manage expectations. My wife usually cares a lot about schools at this stage, but I think it's too early. Just ballpark whether you're looking at a $500K house, a $300K house, or a $200K townhome. How much house can you afford in terms of monthly payments only... (not considering other costs like utilities yet). Looking around at calculators like this one from bankrate.com can help you figure this out. Set the interest rate @ 5%, 30-year loan, and change the 'mortgage amount' until you have something that is about 80%-90% of what you currently pay in rent each month. I'll get to 'why' to undershoot your rent payment later. Crap... can't afford my dream house... If you don't have the down payment to make the numbers work (remember that this doesn't even include closing costs yet), there are other loan options like FHA loans that can go as low as about 5% down payment. The math would be the same but you replace 0.8 with 0.95. Then, look at your personal budget. Come up with general estimates of what you currently bring in and spend each month overall. Just ballpark it... Next, figure what you currently spend towards housing in particular. Whether you are paying for it or your landlord is paying for it, someone pays for a lot of different things for housing. For now, my list would include (1) Rent, (2) Mortgage Payment, (3) Electricity, (4) Gas, (5) Sewer, (6) Water, (7) Trash, (8) Other utilities... TV/Internet/Phone, (9) Property Insurance, (10) Renter's Insurance, and (11) Property Taxes. I would put it into a table in Excel somewhere that has 3 columns... The first has the labels, the second will have what you spend now, and the third will have what you might spend on each one as a homeowner. If you pay it now, put it in the second column. If your landlord pays it right now, leave it out as that's included in your rent payment. Obviously each cell won't be filled in. Fill in the rest of the third column. You won't pay rent anymore, but you will have a mortgage payment. You probably have a good estimate of any electricity bills, etc that you currently pay, but those may be slightly higher in a house vs. a condo or an apartment. As for things like sewer, water, trash or other 'community' utilities, my bet would be that your landlord pays for those. If you need a good estimate ask around with some co-workers or friends that own their own places. They would also be a good resource for property insurance estimates... shooting from the hip I would say about $100/month based on this website. (I'm not affiliated). The real 'ouch' is going to be property tax rates. Based on the data from this website, your county is about 9% of property value. So add that into the third column as well. Can you really afford a house? round 2 Now... add up the third column and see how that monthly expense amount on housing compares against your current monthly budget. If it's over, you don't have to give up, but you should just understand how much your decision to purchase a house will strain your budget. Also, you should use this information to look again at 'how much house can you afford.' Now, do some more research. If you need to get a revised loan amount based on the FHA loan decision, then use the bankrate calculator to find out what the monthly payment is for a 95% loan against your target price. But remember that an FHA loan will also carry PMI that is extra on top of your monthly payment. Or, if you need to revise your mortgage payment downwards (or upwards) change the loan amount accordingly. Once you've got the numbers set, look for properties that fit. This way you can have a meaningful discussion with yourself or other stakeholders about what you can afford. As far as arranging financing... a realtor will be able and willing to point you in the right direction for obtaining funding, etc. And at that point you can just check anything you're offered by shopping interest rates, etc against what the internet has to say. Feel free to ask us, too... it's hard to give much better direction without more specifics."
},
{
"docid": "557237",
"title": "",
"text": "Closing your oldest revolving account will lower your average age of accounts and hurt your score. No ifs, ands, or buts. The amount it drops is hard to tell, and it may only be a few points if your other cards are fairly old as well. While the FICO scoring algorithm is proprietary and hard to predict, you can use the official FICO Simulator to estimate the impact. Based on the information you provided (5+ cards, oldest card 5 years), your estimate is 750-800. Performing the same estimate and only changing the number of cards and age (2-4 cards, oldest card 2-4 years), the score estimate drops to 735-785. Both of these estimates assume you have 9% or less utilization. You can probably estimate that your score will drop at least 15 points. However, it may not matter to you whether your score is maximized. Once you get above a certain FICO score, it doesn't matter. For example, I recently refinanced a vehicle and asked the loan officer about their lowest APR, and found out that they required a 780 FICO for it. Kind of like the difference between getting a 91 or a 99 in a class, an A is an A. Some other factors you may want to consider before you make your choice:"
},
{
"docid": "349733",
"title": "",
"text": "A travel broker can offer solutions to any concerns about records need for honeymoon holiday vacation- An individual's broker knows essential ending schedules and requirements for us passports, etc. They will help direct you through the process. A complete travel brokers can present you with some expert benefits for honeymoon holiday vacation- Since travel providers are familiar with the right things to ask, they may be capable of coming up with offers that the common person would never come across on their own."
},
{
"docid": "186602",
"title": "",
"text": "Via www.socialsecurity.gov: As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted. These estimates reflect the intermediate assumptions of the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2009 Annual Trustees Report. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been making similar estimates for several years that tend to be somewhat more optimistic than the trustees' estimates principally because CBO assumes faster growth in labor productivity and real earnings levels for the future. Doesn't seem too optimistic from the program itself. Also, it is true that recessions end, but in our current state of being trillions of dollars in debt, does it look like things are on the upswing?"
},
{
"docid": "114835",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however."
},
{
"docid": "100668",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no simple way to calculate how much house any given person can afford. In the answer keshlam gave, several handy rules of thumb are mentioned that are used as common screening devices to reject loans, but in every case further review is required to approve any loan. The 28% rule is the gold standard for estimating how much you can afford, but it is only an estimate; all the details (that you don't want to provide) are required to give you anything better than an estimate. In the spirit of JoeTaxpayer's answer I'm going to give you a number that you can multiply your gross income by for a good estimate, but my estimate is based on a 15 year mortgage. Assuming a 15 year mortgage with a 3% interest rate, it will cost $690.58 per $100,000 borrowed. So to take those numbers and wrap it up in a bow, you can multiply your income by 3.38 and have the amount of mortgage that most people can afford. If you have a down-payment saved add it to the number above for the total price of the home you can buy after closing costs are added in. Property taxes and insurance rates vary widely, and those are often rolled into the mortgage payment to be paid from an escrow account, banks may consider all of these factors in their calculators but they may not be transparent. If you can't afford to pay it in 15 years, you really can't afford it. Compare the same $100k loan: In 30 years at 4% you pay about $477/month with a total of about $72k in interest over the life of the loan. In 15 years at 3% you pay about $691/month but the total interest is only $24k, and you are out of the loan in half of the time. The equity earned in the first 5 years is also signficantly different with 28.5% for the 15 year loan vs. 9.5% on the 30 year loan. Without straying too far into general economics, 15 year loans would also have averted the mortgage crisis of 2008, because more people would have had enough equity that they wouldn't have walked out on their homes when there was a price correction."
},
{
"docid": "576931",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They're not at all the same. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment method that pays off early investors with deposits from later ones. Fractional reserve banking is the practice of keeping only a fraction of a bank's demand deposits on reserve, while lending out the rest. The reserve requirement is how central banks limit the amount of money that can float around in commercial banks. In the latter case, there is no \"\"later investor\"\" somewhere down near the bottom of a money food chain. Every dollar, regardless of whether it was created fresh from one of the federal reserve banks or created via several chained loans, is worth the same. If the dollars depreciate for whatever reason, they do so for everyone. Now, if you want a good example of a Ponzi scheme that is actually legal, look at Social Security. Edit: A \"\"debt-based society\"\" is separate from fractional-reserve banking. If the Fed creates $1,000,000, the total amount of money that can float around is still capped based on whatever the reserve requirement is. (For a 10% reserve requirement, it's something like $10,000,000.) We have unsustainable debt increases because of lack of self-control on the part of our leaders. The fractional-reserve process helps it along, but it's not the culprit. It's an enabler.\""
},
{
"docid": "295384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It depends on what kind of pension you get and your anticipated retirement income. If you have one of those nice defined benefit plans that pays 90% of your last 5 years' average salary annually, you might not want to bother with a separate RRSP and put your money into other use instead. While most Canadians should worry about not having enough to retire on, some might end up with too much and costing them in the form current purchases and entitlements to government retirement benefits. Figuring out how much you need for retirement is not trivial either. A lot of people talks about planning for needing 70% of what you made now as a way to preserve your lifestyle. Well, my opinion is that those type of generalization might work for the people in the middle of the income band and is too little for those in the low-income and possibly too much for those with high income. My own approach is estimate your retirement income requirement by listing out your anticipated expenses as if you were doing budget. I would agree that's not the best approach either (back to my comment about no one size fits all), but it's one that I feel most comfortable with. Once you have that figure, factor in what you think you will get from the government (OAS, CPP and etc) and you will have the amount of money you need for retirement. I will warn against using \"\"average life expectancy\"\" to forecast your retirement needs, 'cos 50% of the people will end up with extra money (not a bad problem) and the other 50% will run out of money (bad but very true problem) if you use that approach. Instead of going on and write an essay on this topic, I will simply say this - everyone's situation is different and, just like solving any other complex problems, you need to start with \"\"end\"\" in mind and work things backward, with a ton of different scenario to be able to cope with whatever curveballs life might throw at you. If you spend enough time in the library/bookstore looking through books on the topic of \"\"estate planning\"\" and \"\"retirement planning\"\", you will find people arguing back and fro on these topics - this is a sign that this is complex and no one has the one \"\"good\"\" answer for. Do a bit of reading by yourself and, if still unsure or just want to be sure, go spend the money and review your plan with a fee-only advisor. They will be able to provide another opinion on your situation after thoroughly studying your situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "227197",
"title": "",
"text": "You can file a revised W-4 with your employer claiming more allowances than you do now. More allowances means less Federal tax and (if applicable and likely with a separate form) less state tax. This doesn't affect social security and Medicare with holding, though. That being said, US taxes are on a pay-as-you-go system. If the IRS determines that you're claiming more allowances than you're eligible for and not paying the proper taxes throughout the year, they will hit you with an underpayment penalty fee, which would likely negate the benefits of keeping that money in the first place. This is why independent contractors and self-employed people pay quarterly or estimated taxes. Depending on the employer, they may require proof of the allowances for adjustment before they accept the revised W-4."
},
{
"docid": "53665",
"title": "",
"text": "The IRS no longer requires that employers submit all W4 forms, but they can request a W4 for an employee at any time, and putting false information on your W4 is still a punishable offense. I agree that having a return is like giving the Treasury Department an interest-free loan for the year, but unfortunately paying the appropriate amount of withholding tax is required. There is some ambiguous information regarding an employer adjusting the amount of withholding, but it seems to mean that they can withhold more than the estimated rate, but never less than what is calculated using the deductions on your W4. See the link for more details: IRS Tax Withholding"
}
] |
6278 | What is the best way to help my dad consolidate his credit card debt at a lower rate? | [
{
"docid": "138511",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "361741",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are many paths to success, but they all begin with education. You made the first big step just by visiting here. We have 17,000 questions, arranged by tag so you can view those on a given topic. You can sort by votes to see the ones that have the best member acceptance. I'll agree with Ben that one of the best ones is \"\"The correct order of investing.\"\" We both offered answers there, and that helps address a big chunk of your issue. The book recommendations are fine, you'll quickly find that each author has his/her own slant or focus on a certain approach. For example, one financial celebrity (note - in the US, there are private advisors, usually with credentials of some sort, there are those who work for brokers and also offers help, there are financial bloggers (I am one), and there are those who are on the radio or TV who may or may not have any credentials) suggests that credit cards are to be avoided. The line in another answer here, \"\"You're not going to get rich earning 1% on a credit card,\"\" is a direct quote of one such celebrity. I disputed that in my post \"\"I got rich on credit card points!\"\" The article is nearly 2 years old, the account accumulating the rewards has recently passed $34,000. This sum of money is more wealth than 81% of people in the world have. The article was a bit tongue in cheek (sarcastic) but it made a point. A young person should get a credit card, a good one, with no fee, and generous rewards. Use the card to buy only what you can pay back that month. At year end, I can download all my spending. The use of the card helps, not hinders, the budgeting process, and provides a bit of safety with its guarantees and theft protection. Your question really has multiple facets. If these answers aren't helpful enough, I suggest you ask a new question, but focus on one narrow issue. \"\"Paying off debt\"\" \"\"Getting organized\"\" \"\"Saving\"\" \"\"Budgeting\"\" all seem to be part of your one question here.\""
},
{
"docid": "327366",
"title": "",
"text": "There is one massive catch in this which I found out when I went to Nationwide to ask for a loan. I've got a credit card which they kept increasing my credit limit, it's now at something ridiculous - nearly £10,000 but they keep increasing it. I never use that card, when I went to Nationwide though they said they couldn't give me a loan because I had £10,000 credit already and if I reduced this credit this would affect my credit rating and they could potentially give me a loan. I then realised what MBNA had craftily done. I have two cards with this bank, one with really low interest and the other with really high interest (and a high credit limit) - even though the other card has a zero balance loan companies still see it as money I could potentially go and spend, it doesn't matter to them that I've not spent any money on that card in about 12 months, to them it's the fact that they could give me a loan and then I could go and spend another £10,000 on that card (as you can see extremely risky). Of course this means that what MBNA are craftily doing is giving me such a high credit, knowing full well that I'm not going to use it, but it also prevents their competitors from offering me a loan, even at a lower rate, because I've already got too much credit available. So yes there is a catch to giving you a high credit limit on your cards and it's to prevent you from either leaving that bank or getting a lower interest rate loan out to clear the debt."
},
{
"docid": "215180",
"title": "",
"text": "First and foremost you should do more research on credit cards and what everything means. As expressed by others the balance transfer fee is not what you think it is. Credit cards can be great, they can also quickly erode your credit score and your standing. So understanding the basics is VERY important. The credit card that is right for you should have the following criteria. The first two points should be straight forward, you should not have to pay a CC company for the privilege to use their card. They should pay you through perks and rewards. It should also be a CC that can be used for what you need it for. If you travel internationally a lot and the CC you choose only works within the US then what good is it? The third point is where you need to ask yourself what you do a lot and if a CC can offer rewards through travel miles, or cash back or other bonuses based on your lifestyle. The transfer fee is not what you think it is, people who already are carrying debt on another credit card and would like to transfer that debt to another credit card would be interested in finding a fee or a low %. People do this to get a batter rate or to get away from a bad credit card. If one charges 28% and another charges 13%, well it makes sense to transfer existing debt over to the 13% provided they don't crush you on fees. Since you have no credit card debt (assumption based on the fact you want to build your credit), you should ask yourself for what purpose and how often do you plan to use the credit card. Would this card be just for emergencies, and wont be used on daily purchases then a credit card that offers 3% cash back on gasoline purchases is not for you. If you however love to travel and plan to use your credit card for a lot of purchases OR have a few large purchases (insurance, tuition etc.) then get a credit card that provides rewards like miles. It really comes down to you and your situation. There are numerous websites dedicated to the best credit card for any situation. The final thing I will say is what I mentioned at the beginning, its important, CC's can be a tool to establish and improve your credit worthiness, they can also be a tool to destroy your credit worthiness, so be careful and make smart choices on what you use your card for. A credit score is like a mountain, it requires a slow and steady discipline to reach the top, but one misstep and that credit score can tumble quickly."
},
{
"docid": "179808",
"title": "",
"text": "Debt consolidation is basically getting all your debt into one loan. This is possibly more convenient, and lets you close the other accounts (in the case of credit cards, preventing you from incurring any more debt). Ideally, your consolidated debt will have a better interest rate, so it saves you money as well. If you're defaulting on your debt already, you're likely combining this process with some negotiation with your existing creditors."
},
{
"docid": "298746",
"title": "",
"text": "You might want to head on over to https://law.stackexchange.com/ and ask the same question. However from a personal finance perspective this kind of drama is somewhat common when someone is deceased and financial expectations are not met by the heirs. It sounds like the daughter was expecting a lot more in inheritance than was actually received. There was probably an overestimation of dad's net worth and an underestimation of the cost of his care toward the end of his life. Its best not to participate in this drama, and I feel that you are correct that the daughter does not have a right to see the bank account statements prior to dad's passage. The question is also if she has a right to see it now. Here in the US a joint account can be setup so the ownership transfers to other account holder(s) up death of an owner. So in this case your mother would own the account. If the account is setup as such, then the estate has no right to that money. You may want to check with the bank for some free advice. What is the classification of the account now that dad has passed? When a person grants someone else the power of attorney they have the ability to act as if they were that person. Most of the time POAs are limited in scope so If I give a person the POA to register a car in my name, they cannot apply for a credit card in my name (legally). In this case, however, the POA was probably general so pretty much your mom could do whatever she pleased. So if your mom took good care of the dad and bought herself some nice jewelry that is perfectly allowable with a general POA. I strongly doubt this daughter has any rights to the past records and may not even have the rights to the joint bank account currently."
},
{
"docid": "453147",
"title": "",
"text": "No credit card company would ever give a card with either no credit limit or that was not in credit (for prepaid cards) because they would earn no money from it. The company's income is entirely derived from fees that they charge you for balances and interest on those balances so a 0 limit card would be worthless to them. Getting a prepaid card and letting the balance hit 0 might be a way around this but the fees that you will be charged , and will become a debt in your name, when the billing system tries to take the first paid month's cost from the card and fails will be exorbitant. They may go so far as dwarfing the actual cost but the one thing that they will certainly do is lower your credit rating so this is not a good idea."
},
{
"docid": "580259",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is there more on where Dalio gets his definitions for the short-term debt cycle (5-8 years or so) and \"\"deleveraging\"\" and the long-term debt cycle (75-100 years)? (or his evidence that separates the two)? At one point 18:10, he says the difference is that in a deleveraging, interest rates hit 0 and can no longer go lower, but I don't know if that works as a definition per se. There are other things that central banks do when interest rates hit 0, like buy up assets (which he does mention and include in the \"\"print money\"\" category of things that can be done during a deleveraging). And one of the deleveragings he cites, England in the 1950s, according to Wikipedia was due to difficulty in transitioning out from war production, and according to [this excel file](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/rates/baserate.xls) from the Bank of England on historical rates, it doesn't say interest rates went to 0 at that time (unless Dalio is referring to another point in history when he cites 1950s England). 20:30 His definition of a depression is when debt restructuring or defaults happen. Interesting. What I learned was that there isn't really a hard and fast definition for recessions and depressions (e.g. a recession is two quarters of negative growth in a row and a depression is just a reeeaallly bad/long recession). And I don't think I recall encountering in the past an attempt to define what a \"\"deleveraging\"\" event of an economy is. 24:30 Is debt reduction and redistribution of wealth deflationary? I think it depends on how much the debt reduction or redistribution hurts the spending of the lender or wealthy versus how much it helps the spending of the borrower or the poor. Both are actually similarly \"\"giving some from the haves to the have nots,\"\" and especially redistribution of wealth is similar to fiscal spending, which is mentioned 25:30 as a valid inflationary way to try to help the economy. 26:00 Are deflationary methods (say, austerity) needed to balance out the inflationary methods (central bank buying assets and fiscal spending)? Aren't central bank (interest rates, quantitative easing) and the government (fiscal policy) still the main things that move inflation or deflation? I would think that debt reduction and redistribution of wealth are good when needed, but I wouldn't think you would do those things *mainly* for their (supposed, see above for my doubts) deflationary effects. Still, a very interesting video and one of the best presented videos on a difficult subject.\""
},
{
"docid": "340484",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Allen, welcome to Money.SE. You've stumbled into the issue of Debt Snowball, which is the \"\"low balance\"\" method of paying off debt. The other being \"\"high interest.\"\" I absolutely agree that when one has a pile of cards, say a dozen, there is a psychological benefit to paying off the low balances and knocking off card after card. I am not dismissive of that motivation. Personal Finance has that first word, personal, and one size rarely fits all. For those who are numbers-oriented, it's worth doing the math, a simple spreadsheet showing the cost of the DS vs paying by rate. If that cost is even a couple hundred dollars, I'll still concede that one less payment, envelope, stamp, etc, favors the DS method. On the other hand, there's the debt so large that the best payoff is 2 or 3 years away. During that time, $10000 paid toward the 24% card is saving you $2400/yr vs the $500 if paid toward 5% debt. Hard core DSers don't even want to discuss the numbers, strangely enough. In your case, you don't have a pile of anything. The mortgage isn't even up for discussion. You have just 2 car loans. Send the $11,000 to the $19K loan carrying the 2.5%. This will save you $500 over the next 2 years vs paying the zero loan down. Once you've done that, the remaining $8000 will become your lowest balance, and you should flip to the Debt Snowball method, which will keep you paying that debt off. DS is a tool that should be pulled out for the masses, the radio audience that The David (Dave Ramsey, radio show host) appeals to. They may comprise the majority of those with high credit card debt, and have greatest success using this method. But, you exhibit none of their symptoms, and are best served by the math. By bringing up the topic here, you've found yourself in the same situation as the guy who happens to order a white wine at a wedding, and finds his Mormon cousin offering to take him to an AA meeting the next day. In past articles on this decision, I've referenced a spreadsheet one can download. It offers an easy way to see your choice without writing your own excel doc. For the situation described here, the low balance total interest is $546 vs $192 for the higher interest. Not quite the $500 difference I estimated. The $350 difference is low due to the small rate difference and relatively short payoffs. In my opinion, knowledge is power, and you can decide either way. What's important is that if you pay off the zero interest first, you can say \"\"I knew it was a $350 difference, but I'd rather have just one outstanding loan for the remain time.\"\" My issue with DS is when it's preached like a religion, and followers are told to not even run the numbers. I wrote an article, Thinking about Dave Ramsey a number of years back, but the topic never gets old.\""
},
{
"docid": "113822",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Typically you can use credit card balance transfers to consolidate some, or all, of your other loan balances in one place. The interest rate might be lower. Some prefer to make one payment rather than multiple payments. There is typically a fee that is imposed by the card that is originating or creating the loan. This would be the credit card you are transferring the balances. That fee is typically in the 3% to 5% range. While tempting and attractive on the surface, this plan typically leads to a worse situation then you are now. It's a \"\"tough pill to swallow\"\", but your problem is that you spend too much money. Transferring money will not change this problem, it is your behavior that has to change in order to not accumulate more debt. It has to change further if you want to get rid of the debt in a timely fashion. You would be far better served to forget about this transfer and get your life into control. Spend a lot less, earn more. Pay off the cards you have now and cut them up. Make a goal to be done in a year and figure out how to earn enough money to make that happen. BTW I am a reformed over-spender that now owes nothing. Yep my house, cars, and rental property are all paid for. You can get there too.\""
},
{
"docid": "598428",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Paypal forbids using their credit card service to \"\"give yourself a cash advance or help others to do so\"\". For small ammounts you may get away with it but pushing $10K through a PayPal account is going to raise red flags. In the USA it seems that some cards allow balance transfers from other types of loan while others are restricted to credit cards only. So that is a possibility. Another option can be to find a card with a good deal on purchases. Then move your regular purchases to the card and use the money you would normally have spent on purchases to pay off the other loan. Remember credit cards can be either a very cheap way to borrow or a very expensive way. Which one they are depends on how good you are at negotiating the traps they set up for you. If you do use a credit card deal make sure you Is it overall a viable option? That depends on the details which are not specified in your hypothetical scenario incluing the persons credit rating , what the interest is like on the existing loan and what the expected time to repay the debt is.\""
},
{
"docid": "322900",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\""
},
{
"docid": "423871",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Besides your credit score, there are other smart reasons to have a second line of credit. (Your credit score doesn't affect you the majority of your life, but when it does whoooooo boy does it.) Should the first bank you have credit with create or find a clerical error, a second line of credit can provide a cushion while you sort it out with the first Should physically damage a card, or have it stolen, having a second backup at home will be helpful as you wait for a replacement. Getting a second line of credit with a different institution than your first allows you the flexibility to cancel one and move your business should the deal become unfavorable to you. Multiple lines of credit in of itself is a plus to your credit score (albeit a small one) You can organize your finances. One card handles the recurring payments in your life, the second incidentals. The expected activity type might make it easier to detect fraud. When you get your second line of credit, get it from a different institution than where you have any other business now. (A credit union if you can, or a small local bank). Make sure there is no annual fee, and if there is a reward, be certain it is worth it. Cash back is my favorite because I can spend cash where I like, whereas \"\"points\"\" have to come out of product in their catalogs. Lower interest rate is best of all. Even though you always plan on paying it off every month like clockwork, you might one day run into an issue where you cannot. Lower interest rate becomes very important in that plannings scenario.\""
},
{
"docid": "498728",
"title": "",
"text": "Assuming you would still have a line of credit, it makes plenty of sense to pay off the loan. You're paying 16 percent for money you don't need right now. Pay it all off and you can start rebuilding your savings account. So what do you do in a future emergency? Well first off, you can use the savings you have rebuilt up to that point to fund some portion of it. The rest you can borrow again, as long as you have a line of credit somewhere. The icing on the cake though, is that once you stop carrying a balance, your credit card purchases will have grace periods again. Once that grace period kicks in, it's an effective short term free loan, and if you really wanted to, you could move money that would otherwise immediately go to purchases into savings. The difference is that you're paying in full again, and aren't charged any interest on the float. Just remember, that if you fail to pay in full by the due date, they charge retroactive interest and fees. An alternative is to find a way to consolidate your credit card bill into a collateralized loan. HELOCs for example. The rates are much cheaper than your CC bill, but require you to have some equity in the home. One thing to consider is that HELOCs are an open line of credit that can't be easily taken away. The interest is also tax deductible, unlike your credit card interest. There's also unsecured lines of credit from banks and credit unions, and if you have the credit score the can be cheaper than credit cards. I think I've shown here that there's plenty of alternatives to carrying credit card debt for the unexpected in life. Pay it off!"
},
{
"docid": "463065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ten-years-after-subprime-mortgage-crisis-us-credit-card-walden-siew) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Things have come a really long way since the dark days of the credit crisis, and it&#039;s really flipped completely the other way where now it doesn&#039;t really take great credit to get a credit card. > MS: This is definitely a case of history repeating itself, but the thing is we don&#039;t know what the tip of the mountain is when it comes to credit card debt, because when credit card debt started to fall in 2008 in the credit crisis, credit card debt wasn&#039;t the central problem that sent us over the edge. > MS: We really have seen all levels, from folks with less than perfect credit to folks with 800 credit scores spending more, and that has been part of what&#039;s driven up America&#039;s credit card balances to these record levels. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txd7q/ten_years_after_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis_a_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~191596 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **card**^#2 **debt**^#3 **really**^#4 **crisis**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "464477",
"title": "",
"text": "There are definitely ways to retroactively consolidate medical bills -- there's an entire industry of companies offering debt consolidation (many of which are scummy/predatory, be careful! See https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0150-coping-debt and some decent articles at http://blog.readyforzero.com/are-there-legitimate-debt-consolidation-loans and http://blog.readyforzero.com/how-to-find-a-reputable-debt-consolidation-company). In general, what you are looking to do is take out a loan, possibly at a better interest rate than whatever you are being charged currently, and pay off the medical bills. If you are not paying interest on the medical bills and are just being allowed to spread out the payments, you are already golden and should just put up with the ups and downs. If you have any equity in a home, take out a home equity loan or line of credit, pay off your medical bills. Rates are still great right now. Even if you have no home equity to tap, if you have a steady job you might be able to get a nice small loan from a local bank or peer-to-peer lending site. Do your homework and only work with reputable companies, especially if doing things online."
},
{
"docid": "89622",
"title": "",
"text": "There's some really questionable advice in Rich Dad, Poor Dad. The one that I always thought was bad advice was when he wrote that people should always pay themselves first and worry about paying down debts later. So if you've got big credit card debts, you should first allocate money to saving and investing and pay your debts later. He says that will inspire you to come up with creative ways to get income to pay off that extra debt because you're under pressure. I don't buy it though. It's something that sounds good, but if you apply it, you end up broke quickly."
},
{
"docid": "38016",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would not concede your money to your dad IF he is really wronging you - and we need much more detail to tell. This is the first lesson in life that actually following up on \"\"wrong\"\" things will save you thousands of dollars throughout your adulthood. It is really easy to turn the other way and be out a few thousand dollars. Then the hospital overbills you and you let it go and so on. Follow up, it is your money. The laws behind this are pretty cut and dry. Basically if you put money into one account and only your money was touching the account then it is your money. As a minor this is an expectation and once your turn 18 in the US you have a right to your money. That is given that the money was in the account at 18. So if your dad truly did not touch the account and withdraw the money before you turned 18, it is cut and dry. If your dad took money out before 18 or added his own money to the account it gets rather fuzzy since it is easy for dad to say that I took money out for your expenses. As for this being \"\"nuclear\"\" as keshlam suggests - he is right. His advice is fine but sets you up for people taking advantage of your throughout your life, especially your family. In fact the situation is already nuclear but you were the only thing the bomb hit. So talk to your dad. Explain that you will have to go and file a small claims trial if he does not agree to give you the money. If your situation is already over the top I would bring the paperwork with you filled out. (a person at your local clerk's office will help you find the right forms) You on the other hand better weigh this conversation. We \"\"internet peoples\"\" are only hearing one side of the story. We do not understand your situation at your home. We don't understand who pays for your car, gas, clothes, and room and board. You are 18, so there is no obligation for parents to pay for these things. If I had an 18 year old that had 3K in the bank under my name and they hadn't helped around the house in a year, didn't buy their car, had a poor attitude, and so on I would probably have the same action as your dad. Yea it's \"\"your money\"\" but is it really? When I was 18 I bought ALL my clothes, bought my car, bought my gas/insurance, and so on. I paid for my toothpaste. If this is where you are at and you help out around the house like an adult would then you have solid ground to stand on. If not... I would laugh if I were your dad. My first thought would be you want your money, that is fine. But you are paying rent. Car is gone, get your own. You would be paying for everything. But you would have \"\"your money\"\". So you have some pros and cons to weigh here and taking the money could cost you a TON of money in the future. However if your dad is just being a pure jerk (I kind of doubt this but who knows) then you have an obligation to fight for what is yours. (Note that the end goal of any meeting like this in your life shouldn't be court. It should be an agreement so that the right action is taken and both parties are happy. It could be very well that your dad would be happy with something that has nothing to do with the money. Also there are people with really really bad situations at their homes. A controlling parent is a pretty good \"\"bad\"\" situation and an easy one to solve at 18 - move out. If you don't want to move out then accept your family members, not complain about them. No matter how controlling your dad is your question spews of ungrateful teenager. I am sure you aren't that bad and I am sure your dad isn't that bad.) (And another note: In no way, shape, or form am I suggesting you drop the money issue. There is nothing worse than not talking about it even if you think your dad will kick you out of the house. Resentment building up in yourself or family is the worst possible thing. This needs to be dealt with.)\""
},
{
"docid": "205196",
"title": "",
"text": "My son who is now 21 has never needed me to cosign on a loan for him and I did not need to establish any sort of credit rating for him to establish his own credit. One thing I would suggest is ditch the bank and use a credit union. I have used one for many years and opened an account there for my son as soon as he got his first job. He was able to get a debit card to start which doesn't build credit score but establishes his account work the credit union. He was able to get his first credit card through the same credit union without falling work the bureaucratic BS that comes with dealing with a large bank. His interest rate may be a bit higher due to his lack of credit score initially but because we taught him about finance it isn't really relevant because he doesn't carry a balance. He has also been able to get a student loan without needing a cosigner so he can attend college. The idea that one needs to have a credit score established before being an adult is a fallacy. Like my son, I started my credit on my own and have never needed a cosigner whether it was my first credit card at 17 (the credit union probably shouldn't have done that since i wasn't old enough to be legally bound), my first car at 18 or my first home at 22. For both my son and I, knowing how to use credit responsibly was far more valuable than having a credit score early. Before your children are 18 opening credit accounts with them as the primary account holder can be problematic because they aren't old enough to be legally liable for the debt. Using them as a cosigner is even more problematic for the same reason. Each financial institution will have their own rules and I certainly don't know them all. For what you are proposing I would suggest a small line of credit with a credit union. Being small and locally controlled you will probably find that you have the best luck there."
},
{
"docid": "590364",
"title": "",
"text": "Bonds released at the same time have different interest rates because they have different levels of risks and liquidity associated. Risk will depend on the company / country / municipality that offers the bond: their financial position, and their resulting ability to make future payments & avoid default. Riskier organizations must offer higher interest rates to ensure that investors remain willing to loan them money. Liquidity depends on the terms of the loan - principal-only bonds give you minimal liquidity, as there are no ongoing interest payments, and nothing received until the bond's maturity date. All bonds provide lower liquidity if they have longer maturity dates. Bonds with lower liquidity must have higher returns to compensate for the fact that you will have to give up your cash for a longer period of time. Bonds released at different times will have different interest rates because of what the general 'market rate' for interest was in those periods. ie: if a bond is released in 2016 with interest rates approaching 0%, even a high risk bond would have a lower interest rate than a bond released in the 1980s, when market rates were approaching 20%. Some bonds offer variable interest tied to some market indicator - those will typically have higher interest at the time of issuance, because the bondholder bears some risk that the prevailing market rate will drop. Note regarding sale of bonds after market rates have changed: The value of your bonds will fluctuate with the market. If a bond was offered with 1% interest, and next year interest rates go up and a new identical bond is offered for 2% interest, when you sell your old bond you will take a loss, because the market won't want to pay full price for it anymore. Whether you should sell lower-interest rate bonds depends on how you feel about the factors above - do you want junk bonds that have stock-like levels of returns but high risks of default, maturing in 30 years? Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt. That is, you will owe your bank the car loan until you pay it, and paying it is the only thing you can do to reduce it. However, some schools of thought suggest that maintaining savings + liquid investments makes sense even if you have some debt, because cash + liquid investments can cover you in some emergencies that credit cards can't help you with. ie: if you lose your job, perhaps your credit could be pulled and you would have nothing except for your liquid savings to tide you over. How much you should save in this way is a matter of opinion, but often repeated numbers are either 3 months or 6 months worth [which is sometimes taken as x months of expenses, and sometimes as x months of after-tax income]. You should look into this issue further; there are many questions on this site that discuss it, I'm sure."
}
] |
6278 | What is the best way to help my dad consolidate his credit card debt at a lower rate? | [
{
"docid": "63698",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "253373",
"title": "",
"text": "What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand)."
},
{
"docid": "93271",
"title": "",
"text": "If we're including psychological considerations, then the question becomes much more complicated: will having a higher available credit increase the temptation to spend? Will eliminating 100% of a small debt provide more positive reinforcement than paying off 15% of a larger debt? Etc. If we're looking at the pure financial impact, the question is simpler. The only advantage I see to prioritizing the lower interest card is the float: when you buy something on a credit card, interest is often calculated for that purchase starting at the beginning of the next billing cycle, rather than immediately from the purchase date. I'm not clear on what policies credit card companies have on giving float for credit cards with a carried balance, so you should look into what your card's policy is. Other than than, paying off the higher interest rate card is better than paying off the lower interest rate. On top of that, you should look into whether you qualify for any of the following options (presented from best to worst):"
},
{
"docid": "453147",
"title": "",
"text": "No credit card company would ever give a card with either no credit limit or that was not in credit (for prepaid cards) because they would earn no money from it. The company's income is entirely derived from fees that they charge you for balances and interest on those balances so a 0 limit card would be worthless to them. Getting a prepaid card and letting the balance hit 0 might be a way around this but the fees that you will be charged , and will become a debt in your name, when the billing system tries to take the first paid month's cost from the card and fails will be exorbitant. They may go so far as dwarfing the actual cost but the one thing that they will certainly do is lower your credit rating so this is not a good idea."
},
{
"docid": "463065",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ten-years-after-subprime-mortgage-crisis-us-credit-card-walden-siew) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Things have come a really long way since the dark days of the credit crisis, and it&#039;s really flipped completely the other way where now it doesn&#039;t really take great credit to get a credit card. > MS: This is definitely a case of history repeating itself, but the thing is we don&#039;t know what the tip of the mountain is when it comes to credit card debt, because when credit card debt started to fall in 2008 in the credit crisis, credit card debt wasn&#039;t the central problem that sent us over the edge. > MS: We really have seen all levels, from folks with less than perfect credit to folks with 800 credit scores spending more, and that has been part of what&#039;s driven up America&#039;s credit card balances to these record levels. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txd7q/ten_years_after_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis_a_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~191596 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **card**^#2 **debt**^#3 **really**^#4 **crisis**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "547835",
"title": "",
"text": "For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later."
},
{
"docid": "580259",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is there more on where Dalio gets his definitions for the short-term debt cycle (5-8 years or so) and \"\"deleveraging\"\" and the long-term debt cycle (75-100 years)? (or his evidence that separates the two)? At one point 18:10, he says the difference is that in a deleveraging, interest rates hit 0 and can no longer go lower, but I don't know if that works as a definition per se. There are other things that central banks do when interest rates hit 0, like buy up assets (which he does mention and include in the \"\"print money\"\" category of things that can be done during a deleveraging). And one of the deleveragings he cites, England in the 1950s, according to Wikipedia was due to difficulty in transitioning out from war production, and according to [this excel file](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/rates/baserate.xls) from the Bank of England on historical rates, it doesn't say interest rates went to 0 at that time (unless Dalio is referring to another point in history when he cites 1950s England). 20:30 His definition of a depression is when debt restructuring or defaults happen. Interesting. What I learned was that there isn't really a hard and fast definition for recessions and depressions (e.g. a recession is two quarters of negative growth in a row and a depression is just a reeeaallly bad/long recession). And I don't think I recall encountering in the past an attempt to define what a \"\"deleveraging\"\" event of an economy is. 24:30 Is debt reduction and redistribution of wealth deflationary? I think it depends on how much the debt reduction or redistribution hurts the spending of the lender or wealthy versus how much it helps the spending of the borrower or the poor. Both are actually similarly \"\"giving some from the haves to the have nots,\"\" and especially redistribution of wealth is similar to fiscal spending, which is mentioned 25:30 as a valid inflationary way to try to help the economy. 26:00 Are deflationary methods (say, austerity) needed to balance out the inflationary methods (central bank buying assets and fiscal spending)? Aren't central bank (interest rates, quantitative easing) and the government (fiscal policy) still the main things that move inflation or deflation? I would think that debt reduction and redistribution of wealth are good when needed, but I wouldn't think you would do those things *mainly* for their (supposed, see above for my doubts) deflationary effects. Still, a very interesting video and one of the best presented videos on a difficult subject.\""
},
{
"docid": "113167",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The following is based on my Experian credit scoring feedback and experience here in the UK over many years. (And for further information I currently hold a credit score of 999, the highest possible, with 6 credit cards.) Now I'm assuming that while there may be some differences in particulars in your case due to the difference in locality nevertheless the below should hopefully provide some broad guidelines and reasonable conclusion in your situation: Having a large number of active credit accounts may be seen as a negative. However having a large number of settled accounts should on the contrary have a positive effect on your score. As you keep your accounts mostly settled, I think having another card will not be to your detriment and should in time be beneficial. A large total credit balance outstanding may count against you. (But see the next point.) Having your total outstanding debt on all credit accounts be a smaller proportion of your total available credit, counts in your favour. This means having more cards for the same amount of credit in use, is net-net in your favour. It also has the effect of making even larger outstanding credit balances (as in point 2) to be a lower percentage of your total available credit, and consequently will indicate lower risk to lenders. It appears from my experience the higher the highest credit limit on a single card you are issued (and are managing responsibly e.g. either paid off or used responsibly) the better. Needless to say, any late payments count against you. The best thing to do then is to set up a direct debit for the minimum amount to be paid like clockwork every month. Lenders really like consistent payers. :) New credit accounts initially will count against you for a while. But as the accounts age and are managed responsibly or settled they will eventually count in your favour and increase your score. Making many credit applications in a short space of time may count against you as you may be seen to be credit reliant. Conclusion: On balance I would say get the other card. Your credit score might be slightly lower for a couple of months but eventually it will be to your benefit as per the above. Having another card also means more flexibility and more more options if you do end up with a credit balance that you want to finance and pay off over a period as cheaply as possible. In the UK the credit card companies are falling over themselves trying to offer one \"\"interest free\"\" or 0% \"\"balance transfer\"\" offers. Of course they're not truly 0% since you typically have to pay a \"\"transfer fee\"\" of a couple of percent. Still, this can be quite cheap credit, much much cheaper than the headline APR rates actually associated with the cards. The catch is that any additional spending on such cards are paid off first (and attract interest at the normal rate until paid off). Usually also if you miss a payment the interest rate reverts to the normal rate. But these pitfalls are easily avoided (pay by direct debit and don't use card you've got a special deal on for day to day expenses.) So, having more cards available is then very useful because you then have choice. You can roll expensive debts to the cheapest lender at your disposal for as long as they'll offer, and then simply not use that card for any purchases (while paying off the balance as cheaply as possible), meanwhile using another card for day to day expenses.\""
},
{
"docid": "289177",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some reasons I take low-interest loans are: Leverage. If the loan's rate is low enough, then I can invest the cash in something fairly low-risk, and make more money than I pay in interest. The interest rate has to be pretty low, say below 4% or so. My auto loan is low enough and my home loan is low enough if you count the tax deduction. Obviously you have to invest in something riskier than cash here, though. And consider taxes, which lower the rate you're paying on a home loan, but also lower the returns you're getting on any bonds you invest in. Liquidity and flexibility. If I have N thousands in cash instead of tied up in my house, then I could use that money to survive many months of unemployment for example, or handle any other emergency. But if you become unemployed or have some other emergency, it will be too late to get a home loan. Credit rating. It's good to use some credit, just so you can get more if you need it. But this isn't a reason to take a particular loan, just a reason to have some kind of credit card or loan. Budgeting. When budgeting, it's best to think of expenses such as cars and houses in terms of a monthly cost, so you can see how they nudge out or allow other spending. (When negotiating with a car dealer, of course, use total cost so you don't get screwed by him messing with interest rates.) I wouldn't take a loan just to ease the budgeting (you can always manually \"\"amortize\"\") but it's a nice side effect. For credit cards, there are more buyer protections and you get a nice transaction log (again useful in budgeting). Also you don't have to carry around cash, or worry about your checking account balance. So credit cards are just convenient. But even though my card has a very low rate, it isn't low enough that I want to keep a balance month-to-month, so I don't use credit cards to actually borrow money.\""
},
{
"docid": "441836",
"title": "",
"text": "You should also look outside the box. There are non profit credit relief organizations that will give you free credit counseling. Don't pay for it though. There are some organizations that are shady in offering counseling but they wreck your credit by asking you to stop making your payments. Some of the legitimate organizations out there have ties to credit unions and banks that can offer you some loans to consolidate your debt at rates lower than those you mentioned in your questions. You should probably also approach a credit union directly and discuss debt consolidation loan options. Even if you can only knock out the debts with the highest interest rate, that's a good first step."
},
{
"docid": "569056",
"title": "",
"text": "I feel like this has nothing to do with income, and as such RMDs will not really help or harm you. After a person passes, credit card companies are unlikely to collect any outstanding balance. Debts cannot be inherited, however, assets can be made to stand for debts. Many assets pass to heirs without the probate process and in some cases all of them pass this way. This leaves creditors with nothing and having to write off the balance. Even if assets do pass through probate heirs may dispute the creditors. In that case credit card balances may not be high enough justify hiring a lawyer to fight for payment; or, if they do the judge may be unsympathetic and offer nothing or pennies on the dollar. The bottom line is that they probably see you, or your demographic, as a poor credit risk and reduced their exposure by lowering your limit. While that is not what they told you, they probably have to carefully structure what they say to avoid any discrimination claims."
},
{
"docid": "583359",
"title": "",
"text": "A bank or credit card agency can deny your application for pretty much any reason. That said, it's extremely unlikely they'd do so for a secured credit card. This is because the credit is secured. If your sister is to get a card with, say, a $1000 limit, she will have to provide $1000 in security. This means the banks risk practically nothing. That said, I have found one reference that claims you need a score of above 600 to qualify for a secured credit card, though this is hard to believe. Secured credit cards are a reasonable way of building your credit back up. Just about the only other way for her credit rating to improve is for her history of bad debt to fall off the credit report, but that's going to take quite some time. She should be working hard to provide positive credit history to replace the old negative history, assuming her credit rating is important to her. It may not be; it's only important if she plans on taking on debt in the future. Honestly, a credit rating of around 500 is so bad that I wouldn't even worry much about lowering it. It's already low enough as to make it all but impossible to qualify for (unsecured) credit or loans. A single denial is unlikely to significantly affect the score, except in the very short term. With two bankruptcies, I encourage credit counselling for your sister. There are a number of good books available, too. Credit counselling should go into detail on credit scores, unsecured credit, proper budgeting, and all that sort of useful information."
},
{
"docid": "55084",
"title": "",
"text": "I wouldn't advocate it, but one reason to pay a lower interest rate is if you have $990 on a $1000 limit credit card with 6% interest and $5000 on a $15k limit card at 10% interest. Having $500 to pay in a month and putting it on the lower interest would free up a greater percentage of credit on that card and could potentially help your credit rating I believe. I think having $1000 on 10 different credit cards w/ $15k limit reflects better than $10k on one $15k card, regardless of interest rates. Personally I think that's dumb b/c having the extra credit available is an opportunity to get into trouble a lot easier."
},
{
"docid": "194563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Here's what my wife and I did. First, we stopped using credit cards and got rid of all other expenses that we absolutely didn't need. A few examples: cable TV, home phone, high end internet - all shut off. We changed our cell phone plan to a cheap one and stopped going out to restaurants or bars. We also got rid of the cars that had payments on them and replaced them with ones we paid cash for. Probably the most painful thing for me was selling a 2 year old 'vette and replacing it with a 5 year old random 4 door. Some people might tell you don't do this because older cars need repairs. Fact is, nearly all cars are going to need repairs. It's just a matter of whether you are also making payments on it when they need them and if you can discipline yourself enough to save up a bit to cover those. After doing all this the only payments we had to make were for the house (plus electric/gas/water) and the debt we had accumulated. I'd say that if you have the option to move back into your parent's house then do it. Yes, it will suck for a while but you'll be able to pay everything off so much faster. Just make sure to help around the house. Ignore the guys saying that this tanks your score and will make getting a house difficult. Although they are right that it will drop your score the fact is that you aren't in any position to make large purchases anyway and won't be for quite some time, so it really doesn't matter. Your number one goal is to dig yourself out of this hole, not engage in activity that will keep you in it. Next, if you are only working part time then you need to do one of two things. Either get a full time job or go find a second part time one. The preference is obviously on the first, which you should be able to do in your spare time. If, for some reason, you don't have the tech skills necessary to do this then go find any part time job you can. It took us about 3 years to finally pay everything (except the house) off - we owed a lot. During that time everything we bought was paid for in cash with the vast majority of our money going to pay off those accounts. Once the final account was paid off, I did go ahead and get a credit card. I made very minor purchases on it - mostly just gas - and paid it off a few days before it was due each month. Every 4 months they increased my limit. After around 18 months of using that one card my credit score was back in the 700+ range and with no debt other than the mortgage. *note: I echo what others have said about \"\"Credit Repair\"\" companies. Anything they can do, you can too. It's a matter of cutting costs, living within your means and paying the bills. If the interest rates are killing you, then try to get a consolidation loan. If you can't do that then negotiate settlements with them, just get everything in writing prior to making a payment on it if you go this route. BTW, make sure you actually can't pay them before attempting to settle.\""
},
{
"docid": "19479",
"title": "",
"text": "You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc."
},
{
"docid": "515815",
"title": "",
"text": "As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans."
},
{
"docid": "40665",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your dad may have paid an \"\"opportunity cost\"\" for that outright purchase. If the money he saved had been invested elsewhere, he may have made more money. If he was that well off, then his interest rate should have been the lowest possible. My own father is a multi-millionaire (not myself) and he could afford to have paid for his house outright. He didn't though. To do so would have meant cashing in on several investments. I don't know his interest rate but let's say it was 2.5%. If he invests that million dollars into something he expects to get a 7% return on in the same period, then he would make more money by borrowing the money. Hence, he would be paying an opportunity cost. Assuming you need to work, some jobs will also do background or credit checks. Credit cards can be used by well off people to actually make them money by offering rewards (compared to straight cash transactions). The better your credit history, the better the cards/rewards you can get. You can build that credit history better by having these loans and making timely payments.\""
},
{
"docid": "517361",
"title": "",
"text": "I see some merit in the other answers, which are all based on the snowball method. However, I would like to present an alternative approach which would be the optimal way in case you have perfect self-control. (Given your amount of debt, most likely you currently do not have perfect self-control, but we will come to that.) The first step is to think about what the minimum amount of emergency funds are that you need and to compare this number with your credit card limit. If your limits are such that your credit cards can still cover potential emergency expenses, use all of the 4000$ to repay the debt on the loan with the higher interest rate. Some answer wrote that Others may disagree as it is more efficient to pay down the 26%er. However, if you pay it all of within the year the difference only comes to $260. This is bad advice because you will probably not pay back the loan within one year. Where would you miraculously obtain 20 000$ for that? Thus, paying back the higher interest loan will save you more money than just 260$. Next, follow @Chris 's advice and refinance your debt under a lower rate. This is much more impactful than choosing the right loan to repay. Make sure to consult with different banks to get the best rate. Reducing your interest rate has utmost priority! From your accumulated debt we can probably infer that you do not have perfect self-control and will be able to minimize your spending/maximize your debt repayments. Thus, you need to incentivize yourself to follow such behavior. A powerful way to do this is to have a family member or very close friend monitor your purchase and saving behavior. If you cannot control yourself, someone else must. It should rather be a a person you trust than the banks you owe money."
},
{
"docid": "89622",
"title": "",
"text": "There's some really questionable advice in Rich Dad, Poor Dad. The one that I always thought was bad advice was when he wrote that people should always pay themselves first and worry about paying down debts later. So if you've got big credit card debts, you should first allocate money to saving and investing and pay your debts later. He says that will inspire you to come up with creative ways to get income to pay off that extra debt because you're under pressure. I don't buy it though. It's something that sounds good, but if you apply it, you end up broke quickly."
},
{
"docid": "205196",
"title": "",
"text": "My son who is now 21 has never needed me to cosign on a loan for him and I did not need to establish any sort of credit rating for him to establish his own credit. One thing I would suggest is ditch the bank and use a credit union. I have used one for many years and opened an account there for my son as soon as he got his first job. He was able to get a debit card to start which doesn't build credit score but establishes his account work the credit union. He was able to get his first credit card through the same credit union without falling work the bureaucratic BS that comes with dealing with a large bank. His interest rate may be a bit higher due to his lack of credit score initially but because we taught him about finance it isn't really relevant because he doesn't carry a balance. He has also been able to get a student loan without needing a cosigner so he can attend college. The idea that one needs to have a credit score established before being an adult is a fallacy. Like my son, I started my credit on my own and have never needed a cosigner whether it was my first credit card at 17 (the credit union probably shouldn't have done that since i wasn't old enough to be legally bound), my first car at 18 or my first home at 22. For both my son and I, knowing how to use credit responsibly was far more valuable than having a credit score early. Before your children are 18 opening credit accounts with them as the primary account holder can be problematic because they aren't old enough to be legally liable for the debt. Using them as a cosigner is even more problematic for the same reason. Each financial institution will have their own rules and I certainly don't know them all. For what you are proposing I would suggest a small line of credit with a credit union. Being small and locally controlled you will probably find that you have the best luck there."
}
] |
6395 | Option settlement for calendar spreads | [
{
"docid": "166227",
"title": "",
"text": "First off, you should phone your broker and ask them just to be 100% certain. You will be exercised on the short option that was in the money. It is irrelevant that your portfolio does not contain AAPL stock. You will simply be charged the amount it costs to purchase the shares that you owe. I believe your broker would just take this money from your margin/cash account, they would not have let you put the position on if your account could not cover it. I can't see how you having a long dated 2017 call matters. You would still be long this call once assignment of the short call was settled."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "226984",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\""
},
{
"docid": "291327",
"title": "",
"text": "Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets."
},
{
"docid": "380351",
"title": "",
"text": "Specific stock advice isn't permitted on these boards. I'm discussing the process of a call spread with the Apple Jan 13 calls as an example. In effect, you have $10 to 'bet.' Each bet you'd construct offers a different return (odds). For example, If you bought the $750 call at $37.25, you'd need to look to find what strike has a bid of $27 or higher. The $790 is bid $27.75. So this particular spread is a 4 to 1 bet the stock will close in January over $790, with a $760 break even. You can pull the number from Yahoo to a spreadsheet to make your own chart of spread costs, but I'll give one more example. You think it will go over $850, and that strike is now ask $18.85. The highest strike currently listed is $930, and it's bid $10.35. So this spread cost is $850, and a close over $930 returns $8000 or over 9 to 1. Again, this is not advice, just an analysis of how spreads work. Note, any anomalies in the pricing above is the effect of a particular strike having no trades today, not every strike is active so 'last trade' can be days old. Note: My answer adds to AlexR's response in that once you used the word bet and showed a desire to make a risky move, options are the answer. You acknowledged you understand the basic concept, but given the contract size of 100 shares, these suggestions are ways to bet under your $1000 limit and profit from the gain in the underlying stock you hope to see."
},
{
"docid": "300962",
"title": "",
"text": "sorry, things got busy. active calendar management. Are you talking about having a dedicated receptionist manage say an exchange calendar? taking calls, making an appointment on your calendar and then saving the event and setting reminders? that kind of thing? outgoing calls to confirm appointments sounds interesting, but currently we only want to deal with inbound, process then transfer."
},
{
"docid": "583913",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Month to date For the month to date (MTD), the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 and the price on March 16th is $4.61 so the return is which can be written more simply as The position is 1000 shares valued at $4580 on Feb 28th, so the profit on the month to date is Calendar year to date For the calendar year to date (YTD), the price on Dec 31st is $4.60 and the price on Feb 28th is $4.58 so the return to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is 0.655022 % so the year to date return is or more directly So the 2011 YTD profit on 1000 shares valued at $4600 on Dec 31st is Year to date starting Dec 10th For the year to date starting Dec 10th, the starting value is and the value on Dec 31st is 1000 * $4.60 = $4600 so the return is $4600 / $4510 - 1 = 0.0199557 = 1.99557 % The year to date profit is therefore Note - YTD is often understood to mean calendar year to date. To cover all the bases state both, ie \"\"calendar YTD (2011)\"\" and \"\"YTD starting Dec 10th 2010\"\". Edit further to comment For the calendar year to date, with 200 shares sold on Jan 10th with the share price at $4.58, the return from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is The return from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is The return from Feb 28th to March 16th is The profit on 1000 shares from Dec 31st to Jan 10th is $4600 * -0.00434783 = -$20 The profit on 800 shares from Jan 10th to Feb 28th is zero. The profit on 800 shares from Feb 28th to March 16th is So the year to date profit is $4.\""
},
{
"docid": "224714",
"title": "",
"text": "http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month."
},
{
"docid": "36193",
"title": "",
"text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade."
},
{
"docid": "98150",
"title": "",
"text": "It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?"
},
{
"docid": "325891",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/03/netanyahu-backs-annexation-of-west-bank-settlements) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Israel&#039;s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has backed legislation that would in effect annex settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories that are home to between 125,000 and 150,000 Jewish people. > Observers have noted an increase in visits by Netanyahu to settlements in the occupied territories since Donald Trump was sworn in as US president in January. > The Palestinians seek the West Bank, captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war, as part of a future independent state, and consider all of Israel&#039;s settlements to be illegal - a position that is widely shared by the international community. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74gfm2/netanyahu_backs_annexation_of_19_west_bank/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~222602 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **settlement**^#1 **Netanyahu**^#2 **Israel**^#3 **Jerusalem**^#4 **Adumim**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "266457",
"title": "",
"text": "TL; DR version of my answer: In view of your age and the fact that you have just opened a Roth IRA account with Vanguard, choose the Reinvest Dividend and Capital Gains distributions option. If Vanguard is offering an option of having earnings put into a money market settlement account, it might be that you have opened your Roth IRA account with Vanguard's brokerage firm. Are you doing things like investing your Roth money into CDs or bonds (including zero-coupon or STRIP bonds) or individual stocks? If so, then the money market settlement account (might be VMMXX, the Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund) within the Roth IRA account is where all the money earned as interest on the CDs or bonds, dividends from the stocks, and the proceeds (including any resulting capital gains) from the sales of any of these will go. You can then decide where to invest that money (all within the Roth IRA). Leaving the money in the settlement account for a long time is not a good idea even if you are just accumulating the money so as to be able to buy 100 shares of APPL or GOOG at some time in the future. Put it into a CD in your Roth IRA brokerage account while you wait. If your Roth IRA is invested only in Vanguard's mutual funds and is likely to remain so in the foreseeable future, then you don't really need an account with their brokerage. You can still use a money market settlement fund to transfer money between various mutual fund investments within the Roth IRA account, but it really is adding an extra layer of money movement where it is not really necessary. You can sell one Vanguard mutual fund and invest the proceeds into another Vanguard mutual fund or even into several Vanguard funds without needing to have the funds transit through a money market account. Vanguard calls such a transaction an Exchange on their site. And, of course, you can just choose to reinvest all the dividends and capital gains distributions made by a mutual fund into the fund itself. Mutual funds allow purchases of fractional shares (down to three or even four decimal places) instead of insisting on integer numbers of shares let alone round lots of 100 shares. All this, of course, within the Roth IRA."
},
{
"docid": "272929",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge."
},
{
"docid": "49782",
"title": "",
"text": "I can often get the option at [a] price [between bid and ask] The keyword you use here is quite relevant: often. More realistically, it's going to be sometimes. And that's just how supply and demand should work. The ask is where you know you can buy right away. If you don't wanna buy at ask, you can try and put a higer bid but you can only hope someone will take it before the price moves. If prices are moving up fast, you will have missed a chance if you gambled mid-spread. Having said that, the larger the spread is, the more you should work with limits mid-spread. You don't want to just take ask or bid with illiquid options. Make a calculation of the true value of the option (i.e. using the Black Scholes Model), then set your bid around there. Of course, if not only the option but also the underlying is illiquid, this all gets even more difficult."
},
{
"docid": "319975",
"title": "",
"text": "Both will grow at the same rate. If everything else was equal:fees, investment options, flavor (Roth or deductible); Then I would put the money into the 403B. Why? putting the money into the 403b directly from your paycheck during the year allows you to have all of the $5,500 available to make an end of the year contribution, or to put the money from your tax return into the IRA. While $4,800 is less than $5,500. it is close enough that If you realized late in the calendar year that you had an extra $1,000 you wanted to contribute to your retirement, there wouldn't be enough room left to contribute."
},
{
"docid": "357324",
"title": "",
"text": "Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can."
},
{
"docid": "135474",
"title": "",
"text": "Want to make printable digital scrapbooking calendar as a gift for family or friends? Design your own wall or desk calendar and print ot at home or send them to a lab. You'll find all kinds of templates and calendar kits here. They are perfect for Christmas, Mother's Day, and Father's Day presents."
},
{
"docid": "422062",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Why do stock markets allow these differences in reporting? The IRS allows businesses to use fiscal calendars that differ from the calendar year. There are a number of reasons a company would choose do this, from preferring to avoid an accounting rush at end of year during holiday season, to aligning with seasonality for their profits (some like to have Q4 as the strongest quarter). Smaller businesses may prefer to keep the extra stress of year end closeout to a traditionally slower time for the business, and some just start their fiscal calendar when the company starts up. You'll notice the report dates are a couple weeks after fiscal quarter end, you would read it as \"\"three months ended...,\"\" so for Agilent, three months ended October 31, 2017, so August, September, October are their Q4 months.\""
},
{
"docid": "149341",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'd recommend an online FX broker like XE Trade at xe.com. There are no fees charged by XE other than the spread on the FX conversion itself (which you'll pay anywhere). They have payment clearing facilities in several countries (including UK BACS) so provided you're dealing with a major currency it should be possible to transfer money \"\"free\"\" (of wire charges at least). The FX spread will be much better than you would get from a bank (since FX is their primary business). The additional risk you take on is settlement risk. XE will not pay the sterling amount to your UK bank account until they have received the Euro payment into their account. If XE went bankrupt before crediting your UK account, but after you've paid them your Euros - you could lose your money. XE is backed by Custom House, which is a large and established Canadian firm - so this risk is very small indeed. There are other choices out there too, UKForex is another that comes to mind - although XE's rates have been the best of those I've tried.\""
},
{
"docid": "57363",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Did you get an option contingency? This is usually part and parcel with getting a home inspection; you negotiate a nominal fee, like $100, that gives you the \"\"option\"\" to back out of the deal for any reason at all within X days (typically 7 calendar days). This is usually the time you schedule the home inspection and figure out what needs repairing. If you're still in your option window, then yes, you can back out and get your \"\"earnest money\"\" back from escrow. The seller keeps your option fee (it can be credited to your portion of closing costs if you were to go forward). If you are not in an option period because it's expired or you didn't get one, you can still back out, but unless you're covered by another contract contingency that would apply, such as financing or appraisal (the bank may not be able to underwrite the property even after agreed repairs), you \"\"default\"\" and typically lose your earnest money. Technically the seller could hold you to strict performance and force you to the closing table, but that requires going to court and it's almost never heard of; just taking the earnest money and putting the house back on the market is the easier route for everyone.\""
},
{
"docid": "264490",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The VIX is a mathematical aggregate of the implied volatilities of the S&P 500 Index components. It itself cannot be traded as there currently is no way to only hold a position on an implied volatility alone. Implied volatility can only currently be derived from an option relative to its underlying. Further, the S&P 500 index itself cannot be traded only the attempts to replicate it. For assets that are not tradable, derivatives can be \"\"cash settled\"\" where the value of the underlying is delivered in cash. Cash settlement can be used for underlyings that in fact due trade but are frequently only elected if the underlying is costly to deliver or there is an incentive to circumvent regulation. Currently, only futures that settle on the value of the VIX at the time of delivery trade; in other words, VIX futures holders must deliver on the value of the VIX in cash upon settlement. Options in turn trade on those futures and in turn are also cash settled on the value of the underlying future at expiration. The VXX ETF holds one to two month VIX futures that it trades out of before delivery, so while it is impossible to know exactly what is held in the VXX accounts unless if one had information from an insider or the VXX published such details, one can assume that it holds VIX futures contracts no later than two settlements from the preset. It should be noted that the VXX does not track the VIX over the long run because of the cost to roll the futures and that the futures are more stable than the VIX, so it is a poor substitute for the VIX over time periods longer than one day. \"\"Underlying\"\" now implies any abstract from which a financial product derives its value.\""
}
] |
6410 | Will an ETF immediately reflect a reconstitution of underlying index | [
{
"docid": "471723",
"title": "",
"text": "AAPL will not drop out of NASDAQ100 tomorrow. From your own quote: The fund and the index are rebalanced quarterly and reconstituted annually"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "200360",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\""
},
{
"docid": "55751",
"title": "",
"text": "If the index goes up every single day during your investment, you would indeed be better off with 2x ETFs, assuming no tracking errors. However, this is basically never the case. Indexes fluctuate up and down. And the problem is, with these sorts of ETFs, you double your win on the upside but your downside is more than double. If an index goes up 10% one day and down 10% the next, you lose 1% of the value of your investment (1.1 * 0.9). If you are using 2x ETFs, you lose 4% of the value of your investment (1.2 * 0.8), not 2%. If you are using 3x ETFs, you lose 9% of the value of your investment (1.3 * 0.7), not 3%. So, if the index will continue to rise during your holding period, yes, you are better off with these 2x or 3x ETFs. If the index falls on some days, but rises most other days, the added downside is all but certain to make you lose money even though the stock trends upward. That's why these ETFs are designed for single-day bets. Over the long-term, the volatility of the stock market, combined with your exponentially increased downside, guarantees you will lose money."
},
{
"docid": "138383",
"title": "",
"text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general."
},
{
"docid": "122323",
"title": "",
"text": "The equation you show is correct, you've simply pointed out that you understand that you buy at the 'ask' price, and later sell at the 'bid.' There is no bid/ask on the S&P, as you can't trade it directly. You have a few alternatives, however - you can trade SPY, the (most well known) S&P ETF whose price reflects 1/10 the value or VOO (Vanguard's offering) as well as others. Each of these ETFs gives you a bid/ask during market hours. They trade like a stock, have shares that are reasonably priced, and are optionable. To trade the index itself, you need to trade the futures. S&P 500 Futures and Options is the CME Group's brief info guide on standard and mini contracts. Welcome to SE."
},
{
"docid": "473552",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You could buy options. I do not know what your time horizon is but it makes all the difference due to theta burn. There are weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly and even longer duration options called leaps. You have decided how long of a time frame. You also have to see what the implied volatility is for the underlying because if you think hypothetically that the price of the spy is 100 dollars currently. Today is hypothetically a Thursday and you buy a weekly option expiring on Friday ( the next day) of strike 100.5 and the call option is priced at .55 cents and you buy it. This means that the underlying has to move .5 dollars in one day to be considered in the money but at time 0, the option should only be worth its intrinsic value which is the underlying, (Say the SPY moved 55 cents up from 100 to 100.55), (100.55) minus the strike (100.5) = 5 cents, so if you payed 55 cents and one day later at expiration its worth 5 cents ,you lost almost 91% of your money, rather with buying and holding you lose a lot less. The leverage is on a 10x scale typically. That is why timing is so important. Anyone can say x stock is going to go up in the future, but if you know ****when**** you can make a killing if it is not already priced into the market. Another thing you can do is figure out how much MSFT contributes to the SPX movement in terms of points. What does a 1% move in MSFT doto SPX. If you can calculate that and you think you know where MSFT is going, you can just trade the spy options synthetically as if it were microsoft. You could also buy msft stock on margin as a retail investor, but be careful. Like Rhaskett said, look into an etf that has microsoft. The nasdaq has a nasdaq-100 which microsoft is in called the triple Q. The ticker is qqq. PowerShares QQQ™, formerly known as \"\"QQQ\"\" or the \"\"NASDAQ- 100 Index Tracking Stock®\"\", is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100 Index®. Best of luck and always understand what you are buying before you buy it, JL\""
},
{
"docid": "94076",
"title": "",
"text": "index ETF tracks indented index (if fund manager spend all money on Premium Pokemon Trading Cards someone must cover resulting losses) Most Index ETF are passively managed. ie a computer algorithm would do automatic trades. The role of fund manager is limited. There are controls adopted by the institution that generally do allow such wide deviations, it would quickly be flagged and reported. Most financial institutions have keyman fraud insurance. fees are not higher that specified in prospectus Most countries have regulation where fees need to be reported and cannot exceed the guideline specified. at least theoretically possible to end with ETF shares that for weeks cannot be sold Yes some ETF's can be illiquid at difficult to sell. Hence its important to invest in ETF that are very liquid."
},
{
"docid": "273861",
"title": "",
"text": "You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to."
},
{
"docid": "270992",
"title": "",
"text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps."
},
{
"docid": "159471",
"title": "",
"text": "Why don't you look at the actual funds and etfs in question rather than seeking a general conclusion about all pairs of funds and etfs? For example, Vanguard's total stock market index fund (VTSAX) and ETF (VTI). Comparing the two on yahoo finance I find no difference over the last 5 years visually. For a different pair of funds you may find something very slightly different. In many cases the index fund and ETF will not have the same benchmark and fees so comparisons get a little more cloudy. I recall a while ago there was an article that was pointing out that at the time emerging market ETF's had higher fees than corresponding index funds. For this reason I think you should examine your question on a case-by-case basis. Index fund and ETF returns are all publicly available so you don't have to guess."
},
{
"docid": "367960",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you are asking about actively managed funds vs. indexes and possibly also vs. diversified funds like target date funds. This is also related to the question of mutual fund vs. ETF. First, a fund can be either actively managed or it can attempt to track an index. An actively managed fund has a fund manager who tries to find the best stocks to invest in within some constraints, like \"\"this fund invests in large cap US companies\"\". An index fund tries to match as closely as possible the performance of an index like the S&P 500. A fund may also try to offer a portfolio that is suitable for someone to put their entire account into. For example, a target date fund is a fund that may invest in a mix of stocks, bonds and foreign stock in a proportion that would be appropriate to someone expecting to retire in a certain year. These are not what people tend to think of as the canonical examples of mutual funds, even though they share the same legal structure and investment mechanisms. Secondly, a fund can either be a traditional mutual fund or it can be an exchange traded fund (ETF). To invest in a traditional mutual fund, you send money to the fund, and they give you a number of shares equal to what that money would have bought of the net asset value (NAV) of the fund at the end of trading on the day they receive your deposit, possibly minus a sales charge. To invest in an ETF, you buy shares of the ETF on the stock market like any other stock. Under the covers, an ETF does have something similar to the mechanism of depositing money to get shares, but only big traders can use that, and it's not used for investing, but only for people who are making a market in the stock (if lots of people are buying VTI, Big Dealer Co will get 100,000 shares from Vanguard so that they can sell them on the market the next day). Historically and traditionally, ETFs are associated with an indexing strategy, while if not specifically mentioned, people assume that traditional mutual funds are actively managed. Many ETFs, notably all the Vanguard ETFs, are actually just a different way to hold the same underlying fund. The best way to understand this is to read the prospectus for a mutual fund and an ETF. It's all there in reasonably plain English.\""
},
{
"docid": "271741",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying \"\"liquidity begets liquidity\"\", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly\""
},
{
"docid": "158426",
"title": "",
"text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other."
},
{
"docid": "224765",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An ETF does not track any one individual stock. It \"\"is a marketable security that tracks an index, a commodity, bonds, or a basket of assets like an index fund.\"\" Check out this link to learn more about ETFs. The easiest way see what ETF tracks a stock is to determine what sector and industry that company is in and find some ETF that trade it. The ETF will likely trade that stock, assuming that its market cap and exchange it trades on fits within the parameters of the ETF.\""
},
{
"docid": "47276",
"title": "",
"text": "Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation. SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market."
},
{
"docid": "482238",
"title": "",
"text": "You don't mention any specific numbers, so I'll answer in generalities. Say I buy a call option today, and I short the underlying stock with the delta. The value will be the value of the option you bought less the value of the stock you are short. (your premium is not included in the value since it's a sunk cost, but is reflected in your profit/loss) So, say I go out and adjust my portfolio, so I am still delta short in the underlying. It's still the value of your options, less the value of the underlying you are short. What is my PnL over this period? The end value of your portfolio less what you paid for that value, namely the money you received shorting the underlyings less the premium you paid for the option."
},
{
"docid": "346389",
"title": "",
"text": "The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low."
},
{
"docid": "39436",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The most fundamental answer is that when you short a stock (or an ETF), you short a specific number of shares on a specific day, and you probably don't adjust this much as the price wobbles goes up and down. But an inverse fund is not tied to a specific start date, like your own transaction is. It adjusts on an ongoing basis to maintain its full specified leverage at all times. If the underlying index goes up, it has to effectively \"\"buy in\"\" because its collateral is no longer sufficient to support its open position. On the other hand, if the underlying index goes down, that frees up collateral which is used to effectively short-sell more of the underlying. So by design it will buy high and sell low, and so any volatility will pump money out of the fund. I say \"\"effectively\"\" because inverse funds use derivatives and contracts, rather than actually shorting the underlying security. Which brings up the less fundamental issue. These derivatives and contracts are relatively opaque; the counter-parties are in it for their own benefit, not yours; and the people who run the fund get their expenses regardless of how you do, and they are hard for you to monitor. This is a hazardous combination.\""
},
{
"docid": "516148",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I was able to find a fairly decent index that trades very close to 1/10th the actual price of gold by the ounce. The difference may be accounted to the indexes operating cost, as it is very low, about 0.1%. The index is the ETFS Gold Trust index (SGOL). By using the SGOL index, along with a Standard Brokerage investment account, I was able to set up an investment that appropriately tracked my gold \"\"shares\"\" as 10x their weight in ounces, the share cost as 1/10th the value of a gold ounce at the time of purchase, and the original cost at time of purchase as the cost basis. There tends to be a 0.1% loss every time I enter a transaction, I'm assuming due to the index value difference against the actual spot value of the price of gold for any day, probably due to their operating costs. This solution should work pretty well, as this particular index closely follows the gold price, and should reflect an investment in gold over a long term very well. It is not 100% accurate, but it is accurate enough that you don't lose 2-3% every time you enter a new transaction, which would skew long-term results with regular purchases by a fair amount.\""
},
{
"docid": "244303",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\""
}
] |
6420 | Does the bid/ask concept exist in dealer markets? | [
{
"docid": "565568",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "353396",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \"\"someone\"\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \"\"bid\"\" vs. \"\"ask\"\" price relative to \"\"current\"\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\""
},
{
"docid": "105343",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\""
},
{
"docid": "528475",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\""
},
{
"docid": "351518",
"title": "",
"text": "Bid and ask prices of stocks change not just daily, but continuously. They are, as the names suggest, what price people are asking for to be willing to sell their stock, and how much people are bidding to be willing to buy it at that moment. Your equation is accurate in theory, but doesn't actually apply. The bid and ask prices are indicators of the value of the stock, but the only think you care about as a trader are what you actually pay and sell it for. So regardless of the bid/ask the equation is: Since you cannot buy an index directly (index, like indicator) it doesn't make sense to discuss how much people are bidding or asking for it. Like JoeTaxpayer said, you can buy (and therefore bid/ask) for ETFs and funds that attempt to track the value of the S&P 500."
},
{
"docid": "481298",
"title": "",
"text": "Stop orders and stop limit orders typically do not execute during extended hours after the general market session has closed. Stop orders are market orders and market orders especially are not executed during extended hours. Although there are exceptions because a broker can say one thing and do another thing with the way order types are presented to customers vs what their programming actually does. The regulatory burden is a slap on the wrist, so you need to ask the broker what their practices are. Orders created during normal market hours do not execute in extended sessions, different orders would have to be made during the extended session. Your stop order should execute if the normal market hour price stays below your stop price. So a stop limit would actually be worse here, because a stop limit will create a limit order which may never get hit (since it is above the best bid best ask)"
},
{
"docid": "472537",
"title": "",
"text": "The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for."
},
{
"docid": "392876",
"title": "",
"text": "The situation you're proposing is an over-simplification that wouldn't occur in practice. Orders occur in a sequence over time. Time is an important part of the order matching process. Orders are not processed in parallel; otherwise, the problem of fairness, already heavily regulated, would become even more complex. First, crossed and locked markets are forbidden by regulators. Crossed orders are where one exchange has a higher bid than another's ask, or a lower ask than another's bid. A locked market is where a bid on one exchange is equal to the ask on another. HFTs would be able to make these markets because of the gap between exchange fees. Since these are forbidden, and handling orders in parallel would ensure that a crossed or locked market would occur, orders are serialized (queued up), processed in order of price-time priority. So, the first to cross the market will be filled with the best oldest opposing order. Regulators believe crossed or locked markets are unfair. They would however eliminate the bid ask spread for many large securities thus the bid-ask cost to the holder."
},
{
"docid": "558566",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc."
},
{
"docid": "19196",
"title": "",
"text": "The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view"
},
{
"docid": "295498",
"title": "",
"text": "It is unlikely that buying 100 shares will have any effect on a stock's price, unless the stock's average trading volume is incredibly low. That being said, no matter how many share you buy, there's no way to know what the impact on the price will be, because that's only one factor in how shares are priced. If anyone could figure out the answer to your question then they'd be extremely rich, because they'd simply watch for big share trades and then buy those stocks on the way up. The market makers who actually execute the trades are the ones who set the prices, and most stocks have multiple market makers trading the stock, so the bid/ask you see is the highest bid and lowest ask. The market makers set the price based on what the trend of the stock is. If, for instance, there's a large number of sell orders against a stock, the market makers will start dropping the bid prices as they fill execution orders, and as they see buy orders increase, they'll raise ask prices as they fill execution orders. The market makers earn the difference between what they paid to buy someone's stock who was selling and what they get from someone else who buys it. This is a simplified explanation, so pro traders, don't beat me up! (grin) So, basically, it takes quite a bit of share volume in one direction or another to affect a stock's price. I can guarantee a 100-share trade wouldn't even be noticed by market makers. I hope this helps. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "228983",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\""
},
{
"docid": "272929",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge."
},
{
"docid": "417365",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, as @littleadv mentions, and as I've pointed out before, anyone who participates in a market using limit orders (which, by the way, should be every non-professional investor) is by definition a market maker. So, I will assume that your question pertains both to official market makers and to \"\"retail investors\"\" using limit orders. When you remark that there are such \"\"tight spreads\"\" in \"\"liquid assets\"\", what you are really saying is \"\"wow, look at all the market makers in these products!\"\" That's the benefit of electronic trading and algorithmic traders -- millions of participants each with their own opinion of the value of a financial instrument, trying to find people who have very specifically opposing opinions of the value of that same instrument. This is called price discovery, and is the entire point of financial markets. So, you ask why are there all these market makers present to create such tight spreads in assets like SPY? Answer: Because they can make money in these markets: Imagine (towards a contradiction) that market makers thought they couldn't make money by offering tight spreads in SPY, and so SPY had a wider spread than it actually does. For example, say the highest bid for SPY was $99.98 and the lowest ask was $100.01. Now imagine that a market maker with perfect knowledge of the future came along knowing that he would be able to sell SPY for $100.01 in 5 minutes. Then he would load up as many buy orders as he could for $100.00 or lower. (He wouldn't bid $100.01 or higher because those trades would not be profitable according to his information -- at least not 5 minutes from now.) So the spread had previously been $0.03 and then suddenly it was $0.01, all because a market maker with better information came along and realized he could make money by creating a tighter market! Now, nobody has perfect knowledge of the future, which is why markets are never infinitely tight or infinitely liquid. Each market maker has to weigh possible profits against the probability that those profits will actually turn into losses. But if one market maker decides not to participate in a particular instrument, there's bound to be another market maker who will happily take his place. So the very fact that there are so many market participants with resting buy/sell orders for SPY right now is proof that there are market makers able to make money doing so. If they could not make money, they wouldn't be there, and the spread would be wider. 10-15 years ago, before electronic trading and algorithmic trading, the number of market participants was far lower, and the spreads were far wider, meaning retail investors like you and me had a much harder time making money. The only people making money were the institutional investors, the brokers, and the exchanges. Now that all these new millions of players are present in the market, retail investors like you and me get to participate and make money too.\""
},
{
"docid": "407759",
"title": "",
"text": "You have just answered your question in the last sentence of your question: More volume just means more people are interested in the stock...i.e supply and demand are matched well. If the stock is illiquid there is more chance of the spread and slippage being larger. Even if the spread is small to start with, once a trade has been transacted, if no new buyers and sellers enter the market near the last transacted price, then you could get a large spread occurring between the bid and ask prices. Here is an example, MDG has a 50 day moving average volume of only 1200 share traded per day (obviously it does not trade every day). As you can see there is already an 86% spread from the bid price. If a new bid price is entered to match and take out the offer price at $0.039, then this spread would instantly increase to 614% from the bid price."
},
{
"docid": "67069",
"title": "",
"text": "If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion."
},
{
"docid": "319599",
"title": "",
"text": "Well I'm not going to advise whether it's a good idea to invest in this company (though often OTC is pretty scary), but it DOES have a product (vivio, an ad blocker), it did post financials and it's trading on the OTC-QB (which is better than the pink sheets), so you need to look these over and study up on the product to decide if it is overpriced or not. What might have occurred (viz the Patriot Berry Farm becoming Cyberfort) is that the latter bought up the stock of the former (this is, I believe, called using a shell, which is not necessarily a bad thing) and is using this as a way to be registered, i.e. sell to non-accredited investors via the OTC market. So I'm really just answering your third question: yes, you have to do a lot of due diligence to see if buying this stock is a good deal or not. It might be the next big thing. Or it might not. It certainly is the case that low trading volume allows a relatively small trade to really change the stock price, so the penny stocks do tend to be easier to 'inflate'. Side comment: the bid/ask spreads are pretty big, with a best bid of 0.35 and best ask of 0.44."
},
{
"docid": "281844",
"title": "",
"text": "When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point."
},
{
"docid": "69197",
"title": "",
"text": "Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit."
},
{
"docid": "78053",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\""
}
] |
6420 | Does the bid/ask concept exist in dealer markets? | [
{
"docid": "127452",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \"\"bid\"\" and \"\"ask\"\".\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "382067",
"title": "",
"text": "Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day."
},
{
"docid": "447562",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Realize this is almost a year old, but I just wanted to comment on something in Dynas' answer above... \"\"Whenever you trade always think about what the other guys is thinking. Sometimes we forget their is someone else on the other side of my trade that thinks essentially the exact opposite of me. Its a zero sum game.\"\" From a market maker's perspective, their primary goal is not necessarily to make money by you being wrong, it is to make money on the bid-offer spread and hedging their book (and potentially interalize). That being said, the market maker would likely be quoting one side of the market away from top of the book if they don't want to take exposure in that direction (i.e. their bid will be lower than the highest bid available or their offer higher than the lowest offer available). This isn't really going to change anything if you're trading on an exchange, but important to consider if you can only see the prices your broker/dealer provides to you and they are your counterparty in the trade.\""
},
{
"docid": "118389",
"title": "",
"text": "One broker told me that I have to simply read the ask size and the bid size, seeing what the market makers are offering. This implies that my order would have to match that price exactly, which is unfortunate because options contract spreads can be WIDE. Also, if my planned position size is larger than the best bid/best ask, then I should break up the order, which is also unfortunate because most brokers charge a lot for options orders."
},
{
"docid": "92109",
"title": "",
"text": "When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less."
},
{
"docid": "137175",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price."
},
{
"docid": "69197",
"title": "",
"text": "Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit."
},
{
"docid": "122432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Defining parity as \"\"parity is the amount by which an option is in the money\"\", I'd say there may be an arbitrage opportunity. If there's a $50 strike on a stock valued at $60 that I can buy for less than $10, there's an opportunity. Keep in mind, options often show high spreads, my example above might show a bid/ask of $9.75/$10.25, in which case the last trade of $9.50 should be ignored in favor of the actual ask price you'd pay. Mispricing can exist, but in this day and age, is far less likely.\""
},
{
"docid": "481298",
"title": "",
"text": "Stop orders and stop limit orders typically do not execute during extended hours after the general market session has closed. Stop orders are market orders and market orders especially are not executed during extended hours. Although there are exceptions because a broker can say one thing and do another thing with the way order types are presented to customers vs what their programming actually does. The regulatory burden is a slap on the wrist, so you need to ask the broker what their practices are. Orders created during normal market hours do not execute in extended sessions, different orders would have to be made during the extended session. Your stop order should execute if the normal market hour price stays below your stop price. So a stop limit would actually be worse here, because a stop limit will create a limit order which may never get hit (since it is above the best bid best ask)"
},
{
"docid": "459650",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a great question precisely because the answer is so complicated. It means you're starting to think in detail about how orders actually get filled / executed rather than looking at stock prices as a mythical \"\"the market\"\". \"\"The market price\"\" is a somewhat deceptive term. The price at which bids and asks last crossed & filled is the price that prints. I.e. that is what you see on a market price data feed. ] In reality there is a resting queue of orders at various bids & asks on various exchanges. (source: Larry Harris. A size of 1 is 1H = 100 shares.) So at first your 1000H order will sweep through the standing queue of fills. Let's say you are trading a low-volume stock. And let's say someone from another brokerage has set a limit order at a ridiculous price. Part of your order may sweep through and part of it get filled at a ridiculously high price. Or maybe either the exchange or your broker / execution mechanism somehow will protect you against the really high fill. (Let's say your broker hired GETCO, who guarantees a certain VWAP.) Also people change their bids & asks in response to what they see others do. Your 1000H size will likely be marked as a human counterparty by certain players. Other players might see that order differently. (Let's say it was a 100 000H size. Maybe people will decide you must know something and decide they want to go the same direction as you rather than take the opportunity to exit. And maybe some super-fast players will weave in and out of the filling process itself.) There is more to it because, what if some of the resting asks are on other venues? What if both you and some of the asks match with someone who uses the same broker as you? Not only do exchange rules come into play, but so do national regulations. tl;dr: You will get filled, with price slippage. If you send in a big buy order, it will sweep through the resting asks but also there are complications.\""
},
{
"docid": "380351",
"title": "",
"text": "Specific stock advice isn't permitted on these boards. I'm discussing the process of a call spread with the Apple Jan 13 calls as an example. In effect, you have $10 to 'bet.' Each bet you'd construct offers a different return (odds). For example, If you bought the $750 call at $37.25, you'd need to look to find what strike has a bid of $27 or higher. The $790 is bid $27.75. So this particular spread is a 4 to 1 bet the stock will close in January over $790, with a $760 break even. You can pull the number from Yahoo to a spreadsheet to make your own chart of spread costs, but I'll give one more example. You think it will go over $850, and that strike is now ask $18.85. The highest strike currently listed is $930, and it's bid $10.35. So this spread cost is $850, and a close over $930 returns $8000 or over 9 to 1. Again, this is not advice, just an analysis of how spreads work. Note, any anomalies in the pricing above is the effect of a particular strike having no trades today, not every strike is active so 'last trade' can be days old. Note: My answer adds to AlexR's response in that once you used the word bet and showed a desire to make a risky move, options are the answer. You acknowledged you understand the basic concept, but given the contract size of 100 shares, these suggestions are ways to bet under your $1000 limit and profit from the gain in the underlying stock you hope to see."
},
{
"docid": "525603",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When you place a limit sell order of $10.00 (for a stock on an option) you are adding your order to the book. Anyone who places a buy at-the-market or with a limit price over $10.00 will have that order immediately fulfilled through the offer you have placed on the book. On the other hand, if that other person places a buy for $8.00, then the spread will now be \"\"$8.00 bid, $10.00 ask\"\". Priority is based on first the price (all $9.99 asks will clear before $10.00) and within each bucket this is based on the time your order was submitted. This is why in bidding markets (including eBay) buying at $x.01 is way better than $x.00 and selling at $x.99 is better than $(x+1).00. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_(exchange) under \"\"first-come-first-served\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "322645",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected. There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible to do so."
},
{
"docid": "211441",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As others have noted, your definition of \"\"market price\"\" is a bit loose. Really whatever price you get becomes the current market price. What you usually get quoted are the current best bid and ask with the last transaction price. For stocks that don't trade much, the last transaction price may not be representative of the current market value. Your question included regulation (\"\"standards bureau\"\"), and I don't think the current answers are addressing that. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) provides some regulation regarding execution price. It goes by the designation Regulation NMS, and, very roughly, it says that each transaction has to take the best available price at the time that it is executed. There are some subtleties, but that's the gist of it. No regulation ensures that there will be a counterparty to any transaction that you want to make. It could happen, for example, that you have shares of some company that you're never able to sell because no one wants them. (BitCoin is the same in this regard. There is a currently a market for BitCoin, but there's no regulation that ensures there will be a market for it tomorrow.) Outside of the US, I don't know what regulation, if any, exists.\""
},
{
"docid": "373336",
"title": "",
"text": "Let's say Tommy has a really awesome Mom. She packs Oreos with Tommy's lunch, and every. Single. Day. You're on the school meal plan, and get that boring old doughnut or jelly from the cafeteria daily as part of your lunch plan. You would really rather have Oreos. For some reason, Tommy hates Oreos, but has a real hankering for the cafeteria dessert of the day. You seek out a mutual friend, and Alice, and tell her that you wished your mom was as awesome as Tommy's mom. Alice knows about Tommy's opposite predicament. So Alice says, why dont you pass me your cafeteria dessert every day, and ill pass you a packet of Oreos in return. Never one to turn down a sweet (pardon the pun) deal, you and Alice shake on it. Before the day is out, Alice finds Tommy and makes a similar deal with him. Ive just described a swap transaction. Two corporates, you and Tommy, seek out a swap dealer (usually a bank or broker) who makes two back to back transactions that offsets the position on the dealer's books. They collect a fee, in terms of the bid/ask spread that they quote to the corporations. If you would like to know more about the details, feel free to drop a reply. I work on swap pricing daily as part of my job and would be happy to answer."
},
{
"docid": "585552",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: \"\"You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price.\"\" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long.\""
},
{
"docid": "151391",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assets are marked to market. If you buy at X, and the market is bidding at 99.9% * X then you've already lost 0.1%. This is a market value oriented way of looking at costs. You could always value your assets with mark to model, and maybe you do, but no one else will. Just because you think the stock is worth 2*X doesn't mean the rest of the world agrees, evidenced by the bid. You surely won't get any margin loans based upon mark to model. Your bankers won't be convinced of the valuation of your assets based upon mark to model. By strictly a market value oriented way of valuing assets, there is a bid/ask cost. more clarification Relative to littleadv, this is actually a good exposition between the differences between cash and accrual accounting. littleadv is focusing completely on the cash cost of the asset at the time of transaction and saying that there is no bid/ask cost. Through the lens of cash accounting, that is 100% correct. However, if one uses accrual accounting marking assets to market (as we all do with marketable assets like stocks, bonds, options, etc), there may be a bid/ask cost. At the time of transaction, the bids used to trade (one's own) are exhausted. According to exchange rules that are now practically uniform: the highest bid is given priority, and if two bids are bidding the exact same highest price then the oldest bid is given priority; therefore the oldest highest bid has been exhausted and removed at trade. At the time of transaction, the value of the asset cannot be one's own bid but the highest oldest bid leftover. If that highest oldest bid is lower than the price paid (even with liquid stocks this is usually the case) then one has accrued a bid/ask cost."
},
{
"docid": "285126",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\""
},
{
"docid": "281844",
"title": "",
"text": "When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point."
},
{
"docid": "179258",
"title": "",
"text": "In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur."
}
] |
6441 | Trading with Settled / Unsettled Funds (T+3) | [
{
"docid": "254279",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The issues of trading with unsettled funds are usually restricted to cash accounts. With margin, I've never personally heard of a rule that will catch you in this scenario. You won't be able to withdraw funds that are tied up in unsettled positions until the positions settle. You should be able to trade those funds. I've never heard of a broker charging margin interest on unsettled funds, but that doesn't mean there isn't a broker somewhere that does. Brokers are allowed to impose their own restrictions, however, since margin is basically offering you a line of credit. You should check to see if your broker has more restrictive rules. I'd guess that you may have heard about restrictions that apply to cash accounts and think they may also apply to margin accounts. If that's the case and you want to learn more about the rules generally, try searching for these terms: You should be able to find a lot of clear resources on those terms. Here's one that's current and provides examples: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations On a margin account you avoid these issue because the margin (essentially a loan from your broker) provides a cushion / additional funds that avoid the issues. It is possible that if you over-extend yourself that you'll get a \"\"margin call,\"\" but that seems to be different than what you're asking and maybe worth a new question if you want to know about that.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "522257",
"title": "",
"text": "The literal answer to your question is that a number of different types of mutual funds did not have significant downturns in 2008. Money Market Funds are intended to always preserve capital. VMMXX made 2.77% in 2008. It was a major scandal broke the buck, that its holders took a 3% loss. Inverse funds, which go up when the market goes down, obviously did well that year (RYARX), but if you have a low risk tolerance, that's obviously not what you're looking for. (and they have other problems as well when held long-term) But you're a 24-year-old talking about your retirement funds, you should have a much longer time horizon, at least 30 years. Over a period that long, stocks have never had negative real (inflation-adjusted) returns, dating back at least to the civil war. If you look at the charts here or here, you can see that despite the risk in any individual year, as the period grows longer, the average return for the period gets tighter and tighter. If you look at the second graph here, you see that 2011 was the first time since the civil war that the trailing 30-year return on t-bills exceeded that for stocks, and 1981-2011 was period that saw bond yields drop almost continuously, leading to steady rise in bond prices. Although past performance is no guarantee of future results, everything we've seen historically suggests that the risk of a broad stock-market portfolio held for 30 years is not that large, and it should make up the bulk of your holdings. For example, Vanguard's Target retirement 2055 fund is 90% in stocks (US + international), and only 10% in bonds."
},
{
"docid": "317667",
"title": "",
"text": "Sure thing - Treasuries Bonds/Bills are what the US Gov uses to borrow. However it's slightly different than taking out a loan. It's basically an agreement to give (repay) a set sum of money at a certain time in the future in exchange for a sum of funding that's determined by market forces (supply & demand). The difference between today's price and the payment in the future is the interest. For example (completely made up numbers): - Today is 08/05/2017 - The government issues a bond that say it will pay who ever owns this bond $105 on 08/05/**2018** - The market decides that $105 from the US government paid a year from now is worth $100 today. In other words the US Government is borrowing for one year at a rate of 5% (105 - 100) / 100 = .05 = 5% Now consider Saudi Arabia's petroleum company, Aramco. Because petroleum is traded in dollars, when Aramco makes a sale, its paid in USD. Some of that is going to be reinvested into the company, some paid out in dividends to share holders but inevitably some of that will be saved someplace where it can make interest. Because treasuries are traded/issued in dollars and because Aramco's businesses deals primarily in dollars, treasuries are the natural place to store that savings, especially because the market considers them extremely safe. If they exchange the USD into the Saudi currency to store the money in Saudi assets, Aramco is subject to *exchange rate risk*. If the riyal depreciates relative to the dollar, Aramco will lose wealth on the exchange back to dollars when they go to move those funds back into their business. It's in their interest to deal with assets denominated in USD (i.e. T-Bonds) in order to avoid this. So now because the Saudis want T-Bonds as well, the additional demand pushes the market price of our bond from $100 to $102. And the effective one year borrowing rate for the Government goes from 5% to 2.9%. (105 - 102)/102 = .029411 = 2.9% And there you have it, cheaper borrowing. It's also worth noting how this encourages business around the world to deal in dollars which are directly controlled by the federal reserve. This makes the US's position extremely powerful."
},
{
"docid": "578432",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.politico.eu/article/schulz-to-trump-dropping-paris-agreement-means-no-trade-talks/) reduced by 49%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Germany&#039;s challenger for the chancellorship, Martin Schulz, vowed Thursday to retaliate against U.S. President Donald Trump&#039;s potential withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement by refusing to engage in transatlantic trade talks. > Referring to trade negotiations with the U.S., which ran until the end of last year but are now on ice, Schulz said it would be impossible to grant better market access to the U.S. if it did not respect climate protection rules. > &quot;If the U.S. drops out of the climate agreement for European trade policy, this means that American production sites don&#039;t need to abide by the climate goals,&quot; said the Social Democratic candidate, who was speaking at the WDR Europa Forum in Berlin. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6evbt7/martin_schulz_to_trump_dropping_paris_agreement/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~134917 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **trade**^#1 **market**^#2 **U.S.**^#3 **European**^#4 **climate**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "137406",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/richmondfedorg/publications/research/working_papers/2017/pdf/wp17-12.pdf) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > 7 3 Local Dynamics The local dynamics of the simple search and matching model have been studied by Krause and Lubik. > In the previous literature, for example Mendes and Mendes and Bhattacharya and Bunzel, the backward dynamics are defined via the map g by rearranging to isolate &theta;t : \u0010 \u00111/&xi; &theta;t = a&theta;t+1 c&theta;t+1 + d = g. 11 Under risk aversion, the dynamics depend on the time path of output yt. > 4.2 Stability Properties We now study the dynamics of the backward map zt = f. We first establish the properties of the function f. We then study the stability properties of the steady state, where we distinguish between two broad areas of dynamics in the backward map, namely stable and unstable. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/788alk/fed_global_dynamics_in_a_search_and_matching/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~233564 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **dynamic**^#1 **model**^#2 **0.1**^#3 **1**^#4 **map**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "151546",
"title": "",
"text": "It's a covered call. When I want to create a covered call position, I don't need to wait before the stock transaction settles. I enter it as one trade, and they settle at different times."
},
{
"docid": "234077",
"title": "",
"text": "Actually, it would be freaking awesome! (1) People would stop arguing about earth being 10000 years old. That dispute has been settled decades ago in most of the civilized world. (2) Funding of science and medical research would go through the roof. Funding of idiotic wars would go down. You are not going to die from a terrorist attack, you are going to die from cancer. If we were to spend as much $$ on science as we do on miliary, that problem would have been long gone. (3) Government would be done based on hard numbers rather than BS statements by former exterminators who somehow made their way to congress. (4) We would be on the way to solving global warming problem. (5) My local bookstore would have had a bigger science section than religion section. That same story would not have Bible audiobook in non-fiction section. What's sad, I am not living in Deep South. I live in Seattle. I could go on and on and on and on...."
},
{
"docid": "72024",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\""
},
{
"docid": "121465",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\""
},
{
"docid": "152111",
"title": "",
"text": "with me and my wife coming from different countries, and us both living in a non-native country, we have very little clue where we will eventually settle down. The answer depends on where you reside currently, tax rules and ability to move funds. As well as where you plan to settle down and the tax rules there. From what I understand, once you eventually retire and take an annuity from your pension you are then taxed on it as income anyway? Yes and No. For example if you move from US to India, stay in India for 7 years. You then move your retirement funds from US to India the entire amount would be taxable in India. but would this 'freedom' would come with significant costs in terms of savings at retirement? The cost would be hard to predict. It depends on the tax treatments in the respective countries on the retirement kitty. It also depends on whether the country you are staying in will allow complete withdrawal and transfer of retirement funds without penalty."
},
{
"docid": "325465",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.alternet.org/food/some-government-programs-are-basically-slush-funds-beef-and-pork-industries-some-lawmakers-are) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Two pairs of ideological opposites introduced bills in the U.S. House and Senate earlier this year-Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Cory Booker, D-N.J., in the Senate, and Dave Brat, R-Va., and Dina Titus, D-Nev., in the House-to reform a series of federal government programs that have too often taken on the character of slush funds for the beef and pork industries. > Their legislation, the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming Act, would prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture and agribusiness trade groups-including the National Cattlemen&#039;s Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council-from diverting tens of millions of dollars a year to salaries, lobbying, and other inappropriate and impermissible activities through the national checkoff programs. > &quot;Farmers should have guarantees these programs are working for them, and shouldn&#039;t have their hard-earned money going toward a slush fund for big ag.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6onbzi/some_government_programs_are_basically_slush/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~172247 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **farm**^#1 **federal**^#2 **checkoff**^#3 **fund**^#4 **program**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "554853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Cash Credit from Unsettled Activity occurs because AGG issued a dividend in the past week. Since you purchased the ETF long enough before the record date (June 5, 2013) for that trade to settle, you qualified for a dividend. The dividend distribution was $0.195217/share for each of your six shares, for a total credit of $1.17 = 6 * 0.195217. For any ETF, the company's website should tell you when dividends are issued, usually under a section titled \"\"Distributions\"\" or something similar. If you look in your Fidelity account's History page, it should show an entry of \"\"Dividend Received\"\", which confirms that the cash credit is coming from a dividend distribution. You could look up your holdings and see which one(s) recently issued a dividend; in this case, it was AGG.\""
},
{
"docid": "107884",
"title": "",
"text": "It really varies based on the stock (volatility is the main determining factor), and whether you are talking about temporary or permanent price impact, how long you are trading, etc. The below paper fits a functional form to a set of Citigroup data and estimates for a 10% dtv trade in a large cap like IBM the price would move on the order of 30bps. Presumably smallcaps would be more expensive. Their estimate seems a bit low to me but I'm more familiar with futures, so maybe it's not unreasonable https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=JjDsU_L-CI33yQSh4oKQDA&url=http://www.math.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/costestim.pdf&cd=3&ved=0CCQQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNGN6LmPb9sHR5dljcJJ2rV4bNE4Jg&sig2=WYhcCUFr8WcRfetA24wXLg"
},
{
"docid": "505223",
"title": "",
"text": "In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm"
},
{
"docid": "480489",
"title": "",
"text": "Given that a mutual fund manager knows, at the end of the day, precisely how many shares/units/whatever of each investment (stock, equity, etc.) they own, plus their bank balance, It is calculating this given. There are multiple orders that a fund manager requests for execution, some get settled [i.e. get converted into trade], the shares itself don't get into account immediately, but next day or 2 days later depending on the exchange. Similarly he would have sold quite a few shares and that would still show shares in his account. The bank balance itself will not show the funds to pay as the fund manager has purchased something ... or the funds received as the fund manager has sold something. So in general they roughly know the value ... but they don't exactly know the value and would have to factor the above variables. That's not a simple task when you are talking about multiple trades across multiple shares."
},
{
"docid": "23387",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You need to have 3 things if you are considering short-term trading (which I absolutely do not recommend): The ability to completely disconnect your emotions from your gains and losses (yes, even your gains but especially your losses). The winning/losing on a daily basis will cause you to start taking unnecessary risk in order to win again. If you can't disconnect your emotions, then this isn't the game for you. The lowest possible trading costs to enter and exit a position. People will talk about 1% trading costs; that rule-of-thumb doesn't apply anymore. Personally, my trading costs are a total 13.9 basis points to enter and exit a $10,000 position and I think it's still too high (that's just a hair above one-eighth of 1% for you non-traders). The ability to \"\"gut-check\"\" and exit a losing position FAST. Don't hesitate and don't hope for it to go up. GTFO. If you are serious about short-term trading then you must close all positions on a daily basis. Don't do margin in today's market as many valuations are high and some industries are not trending as they have in the past. The leverage will kill you. It's not a question of \"\"if\"\", it's a when. You're new. Don't trade anything larger than a $5,000 position, no matter what. Don't hold more than 10% of your portfolio in the same industry. Don't be afraid to sit on 50% cash or more for months at a time. Use money market funds to park cash because they are T+1 settlement and most firms will let you trade the stock without cash as long as you effect the money market trade on the same day since stock settlement is T+3.\""
},
{
"docid": "150895",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/are-index-funds-evil/534183/) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Best of all for their investors, index funds have consistently beaten the performance of stock-pickers and actively managed funds, whose higher fees may support the Manhattan lifestyle of many bankers, but turn out not to deliver much to customers. > One journal article argues that large index funds are violating antitrust law; another recommends a limit on index funds owning stock in more than one company in an industry. > Azar emphasized to me that common ownership is less problematic if index funds own only a small share of a company&#039;s stock, or if the company has other very large shareholders who don&#039;t also own shares in the company&#039;s competitors. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6tb4aa/are_index_funds_bad_for_the_economy/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~189518 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Common**^#1 **company**^#2 **funds**^#3 **Ownership**^#4 **index**^#5\""
},
{
"docid": "552255",
"title": "",
"text": "The loss for B can be used to write off the gain for A. You will fill out a schedule 3 with cost base and proceeds of disposition. This will give you a $0 capital gain for the year and an amount of $5 (50% of the $10 loss) you can carry forward to offset future capital gains. You can also file a T1-a and carry the losses back up to 3 years if you're so inclined. It can't be used to offset other income (unless you die). Your C and D trades can't be on income account except for very unusual circumstances. It's not generally acceptable to the CRA for you to use 2 separate accounting methods. There are some intricacies but you should probably just use capital gains. There is one caveat that if you do short sales of Canadian listed securities, they will be on income account unless you fill out form T-123 and elect to have them all treated as capital gains. I just remembered one wrinkle in carrying forward capital losses. They don't reduce your capital gains anymore, but they reduce your taxable income. This means your net income won't be reduced and any benefits that are calculated from that (line 236), will not get an increase."
},
{
"docid": "397897",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\""
},
{
"docid": "175682",
"title": "",
"text": "Traditionally, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was only comprised of stocks that were traded on the New York Stock exchange. Neither Apple (AAPL) nor Google (GOOG) are traded on the New York Stock Exchange but instead are traded on NASDAQ. All NASDAQ tickers are four characters long and all NYSE tickers are only three or less characters long (e.g. IBM or T (AT&T)). However in 1999, MSFT became the first NASDAQ stock to be included in the DJIA. Given that AAPL now has the largest market capitalization of any company in U.S. history, I think it is likely if they retain that position, that they would eventually be let into the DOW club too, perhaps, ironically, even supplanting Microsoft."
}
] |
6467 | Advice on strategy for when to sell | [
{
"docid": "453256",
"title": "",
"text": "I bought 1000 shares of a $10 stock. When it doubled, I sold half, no need to be greedy. I watched the shares split 2 for one, and sold as it doubled and doubled again. In the end, I had $50,000 in cash pulled out and still had 100 shares. The shares are now worth $84K since they split 7 for one and trade near $120. Had I just kept the shares till now, no sales, I'd have 14,000 shares of Apple worth $1.68M dollars. $130K for an initial $10,000 investment is nothing to complain about, but yes, taking a profit can be the wrong thing. 25%? Was that all the potential the company had? There's one question to ask, not where is the price today compared to last year or two years ago, but what are the company's prospects. Is the reason I bought them still valid? Look at your investment each quarter as if you were making the decision that day. I agree, diversification is important, so the choice is only hold or sell, not to buy more of a good company, because there are others out there, and the one sane thing Cramer says that everyone should adhere to is to not put your eggs in one basket."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "226496",
"title": "",
"text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:"
},
{
"docid": "358939",
"title": "",
"text": "\"(1) I think the phrase \"\"Variable Annuity\"\" is a glowing red flag. A corollary to that is that any strategy that uses insurance for a purpose (e.g. tax avoidance) other than protecting against loss rates at least a yellow flag. (2) The other really obvious indicator is a return that is completely out of whack with the level of risk they are saying the investment has. For example, if someone promises a 10% annual return that is \"\"Completely Safe\"\" or \"\"Very low risk\"\", Run. (3) If it is advertised on tv/radio, or all your friends are talking about it at parties. Stay away. Example: Investing in Gold Coins or the hot Tech IPO. (4) The whole sales pitch relies on past returns as proof that the investment will do well without any real discussion of other reasons it will continue to to well. Beware the gambler's fallacy. (5) Finally, be very wary of anyone who has some sort of great investment plan that they will teach you if you just pay $X or go to their seminar. Fee based advice is fine, but people selling a get rich quick vehicle typically know the real way to get rich is to get suckers to pay for their seminars.\""
},
{
"docid": "122404",
"title": "",
"text": "In a year with no income, the best advice is to convert existing IRA money to Roth. This lets you take advantage of the 'zero' bracket, the combination of your exemption and standard deduction. This adds to $10,300 for a single person. Other than that, if you are determined to take the money out, just do it. There would be a 10% penalty of the growth, but the original deposit comes out tax free anyway. Edit - There's a rule that if you sell your entire Roth account (i.e. all Roth accounts, you can't pick one of a few) and have a loss, you can take that loss. (Per Dilip's comment, this strategy is pretty moot, it's not a loss taken against other income as a stock loss would potentially be))"
},
{
"docid": "72024",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\""
},
{
"docid": "43614",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are several types of financial advisors. Some are associated with brokerages and insurance companies and the like. Their services are often free. On the other hand, the advice they give you will generally be strongly biased toward their own company's products, and may be biased toward their own profits rather than your gains. (Remember, anything free is being paid for by someone, and if you don't know who it's generally going to be you.) There are some who are good, but I couldn't give you any advice on finding them. Others are not associated with any of the above, and serve entirely as experts who can suggest ways of distributing your money based on your own needs versus resources versus risk-tolerance, without any affiliation to any particular company. Consulting these folks does cost you (or, if it's offered as a benefit, your employer) some money, but their fiduciary responsibility is clearly to you rather than to someone else. They aren't likely to suggest you try anything very sexy, but when it comes to your primary long-term savings \"\"exciting\"\" is usually not a good thing. The folks I spoke to were of the latter type. They looked at my savings and my plans, talked to me about my risk tolerance and my goals, picked a fairly \"\"standard\"\" strategy from their files, ran simulations against it to sanity-check it, and gave me a suggested mix of low-overhead index fund types that takes almost zero effort to maintain (rebalance occasionally between funds), has acceptable levels of risk, and (I admit I've been lucky) has been delivering more than acceptable returns. Nothing exciting, but even though I'm relatively risk-tolerant I'd say excitement is the last thing I need in my long-term savings. I should actually talk to them again some time soon to sanity-check a few things; they can also offer advice on other financial decisions (whether/when I might want to talk to charities about gift annuity plans, whether Roth versus traditional 401(k) makes any difference at all at this point in my career, and so on).\""
},
{
"docid": "546841",
"title": "",
"text": "\"https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/ https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/ https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/ Legit after 5 minutes of googling...and using the search bar in reddit for these jobs... Actually, since you edited your response, here's why I found it kinda naive. You have a pretty good gig as a petroleum engineer in a F500 company. The only thing in your description that you're interested in a job is a corporate job. Which is for the most part all professional jobs. Its ok to be curious, but saying \"\"I don't like engineering but I like corporate jobs so tell me about corporate sounding jobs even though google has tons of articles on it\"\" sounds entitled and naive. Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group. Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company. Business development usually is about growing the company through finding new customers, markets, or partnerships. Instead of selling specific products or services, you're selling your company's abilities and brand. I'd say, with your engineering background, if you can swing a corporate strategy gig, you'd have the greatest opps for any VP you decide. I'd say if you want to sell or are good at selling, then business development may be compelling. If I were you, corporate finance would be the least appealing unless you are truly interested in finance.\""
},
{
"docid": "368348",
"title": "",
"text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it."
},
{
"docid": "136270",
"title": "",
"text": "The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books - This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!"
},
{
"docid": "303754",
"title": "",
"text": "If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans."
},
{
"docid": "564957",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)."
},
{
"docid": "278607",
"title": "",
"text": "To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy."
},
{
"docid": "201736",
"title": "",
"text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster."
},
{
"docid": "348663",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Note that long term you need to plan for possible inflation, so \"\"a little bit of return\"\" generally wants to be at least high enough to offset that plus \"\"a little bit\"\". Which is why just shoving it in a bank, while extremely safe, isn't usually the best choice. You need to make some decisions about how you trade off risk versus return, whether you will comfortable riding out a downturn while waiting for recovery, and so on. My standard advice, as someone else who knows how little he knows: It's worth spending a few hundred of those dollars to talk to a real financial planner. (NOT someone who has any interest in selling you particular products, like a broker or agent!) They can help you ask yourself the right questions about comfort and goals and timeframe to pick a strategy which suits your needs. It won't be \"\"exciting\"\", but it sounds luke you agree with me that this shouldn't be exciting and \"\"market rate of return\"\" (about 8% annually, long term) is generally good enough, with more conservative positions as you approach the point of needing that money.\""
},
{
"docid": "534755",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a strategy called merger-arbitrage where you buy the stock of the acquired company when it sells for less than the final acquisition price. Usually the price will rise to about the acquisition price fairly rapidly after the merge is announced, so you have to move fast. The danger is that the merger gets called off (regulatory reasons, the acquired company board votes no) and you get left holding shares bought at a price higher than the price after the merger collapses. This is kind of an advanced strategy and a tough one to back test since each M&A deal is unique."
},
{
"docid": "522798",
"title": "",
"text": "There are 2 main types of brokers, full service and online (or discount). Basically the full service can provide you with advice in the form of recommendations on what to buy and sell and when, you call them up when you want to put an order in and the commissions are usually higher. Whilst an online broker usually doesn't provide advice (unless you ask for it at a specified fee), you place your orders online through the brokers website or trading platform and the commissions are usually much lower. The best thing to do when starting off is to go to your country's stock exchange, for example, The ASX in Sydney Australia, and they should have a list of available brokers. Some of the online brokers may have a practice or simulation account you can practice on, and they usually provide good educational material to help you get started. If you went with an online broker and wanted to buy Facebook on the secondary market (that is on the stock exchange after the IPO closes), you would log onto your brokers website or platform and go to the orders section. You would place a new order to buy say 100 Facebook shares at a certain price. You can use a market order, meaning the order will be immediately executed at the current market price and you will own the shares, or a limit price order where you select a price below the current market price and wait for the price to come down and hit your limit price before your order is executed and you get your shares. There are other types of orders available with different brokers which you will learn about when you log onto their website. You also need to be careful that you have the funds available to pay for the share at settlement, which is 3 business days after your order was executed. Some brokers may require you to have the funds deposited into an account which is linked to your trading account with them. To sell your shares you do the same thing, except this time you choose a sell order instead of a buy order. It becomes quite simple once you have done it a couple of times. The best thing is to do some research and get started. Good Luck."
},
{
"docid": "64263",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is known as \"\"Zone Pricing\"\" or \"\"Geographical Pricing\"\". http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/19/business/fi-calprice19 Such price variations may seem odd, but they are not unique to Anaheim. On any given day, in any major U.S. city, a single brand of gasoline will sell for a wide range of prices even when the cost to make and deliver the fuel is the same. The primary culprit is zone pricing, a secret and pervasive oil company strategy to boost profits by charging dealers different amounts for fuel based on traffic volume, station amenities, nearby household incomes, the strength of competitors and other factors. It's a controversial strategy, but the courts have thus far deemed it legal, and the Federal Trade Commission recently said the effect on consumers was ambiguous because some customers got hurt by higher prices while others benefited from lower ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_pricing Zone pricing, as practiced in the gasoline industry in the United States, is the pricing of gasoline based on a complex and secret weighting of factors, such as the number of competing stations, number of vehicles, average traffic flow, population density, and geographic characteristics. This can result in two branded gas stations only a few miles apart selling gasoline at a price differential of as much as $0.50 per gallon. But the short answer is \"\"because they can\"\". It's legal, provided that some people are paying less while others are paying more. Essentially the larger, richer audience is subsidizing the product for other areas. It's not terribly different than the way most drugs are priced in the world.\""
},
{
"docid": "535918",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What would be the best strategy to avoid paying income taxes on the sale after I move to another US state? Leaving the US and terminating your US residency before the sale closes. Otherwise consider checking your home country's tax treaty with the US. In any case, for proper tax planning you should employ a licensed tax adviser - an EA, CPA or an attorney licensed in your State (the one you'd be when the sale closes). No-one else is legally allowed to provide you tax advice on the matter. Because the company abroad is befriended, I have control over when (and e.g. in how many chunks) the earnings of the sale flow into my LLC. So I can plan where I live when that money hits my US account. I'm not familiar with the term \"\"befriended\"\" in this context, but form what I understand your description - its a shell corporation under your own control. This means that the transfer of money between the corporation and your LLC is of no consequence, you constructively received the money when the corporation got it, not the LLC. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there's importance to when the money hits your US bank account. This is irrelevant. The US taxes your worldwide income, so it is taxed when you earn it, not when you transfer it into the country (as opposed to some other countries, for example India or the UK). As such, in your current scheme, it seems to me that you're breaking the US tax law. This is my personal impression, of course, get a professional advice from a licensed tax professional as I defined earlier.\""
},
{
"docid": "247101",
"title": "",
"text": "The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work."
},
{
"docid": "146632",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\""
}
] |
6467 | Advice on strategy for when to sell | [
{
"docid": "66834",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "319793",
"title": "",
"text": "You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits."
},
{
"docid": "576364",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy. You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a \"\"straddle\"\" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly. Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT\""
},
{
"docid": "478711",
"title": "",
"text": "As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office."
},
{
"docid": "107045",
"title": "",
"text": "Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:"
},
{
"docid": "367391",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\""
},
{
"docid": "226496",
"title": "",
"text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:"
},
{
"docid": "18675",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is not clear when you mean \"\"company's directors\"\" are they also majority owners. There are several reasons for Buy; Similarly there are enough reasons for sell; Quite often the exact reasons for Buy or Sell are not known and hence blindly following that strategy is not useful. It can be one of the inputs to make a decision.\""
},
{
"docid": "368348",
"title": "",
"text": "Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it."
},
{
"docid": "370995",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it. It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be \"\"let's see what happens.\"\" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well. So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell. At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy.\""
},
{
"docid": "239769",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements. To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits). One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes."
},
{
"docid": "240023",
"title": "",
"text": "One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put. The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put. If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost. The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies."
},
{
"docid": "105973",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would personally beware of the Motley Fool. Their success is based largely on their original investment strategy book. It had a lot of good advice in it, but it pushed a strategy called \"\"The Foolish Four\"\" which was an investing strategy. Since it was based on a buy-and-hold method with 18-month evaluation intervals, it was not a get-rich-quick scheme. However, its methods were validated through data mining and subsequently turned out to be not so good. At least they admit this: http://www.fool.com/ddow/2000/ddow001214.htm\""
},
{
"docid": "201736",
"title": "",
"text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster."
},
{
"docid": "122404",
"title": "",
"text": "In a year with no income, the best advice is to convert existing IRA money to Roth. This lets you take advantage of the 'zero' bracket, the combination of your exemption and standard deduction. This adds to $10,300 for a single person. Other than that, if you are determined to take the money out, just do it. There would be a 10% penalty of the growth, but the original deposit comes out tax free anyway. Edit - There's a rule that if you sell your entire Roth account (i.e. all Roth accounts, you can't pick one of a few) and have a loss, you can take that loss. (Per Dilip's comment, this strategy is pretty moot, it's not a loss taken against other income as a stock loss would potentially be))"
},
{
"docid": "344372",
"title": "",
"text": "I like C. Ross and MrChrister's advice to not be heavily weighted in one stock over the long run, especially the stock of your employer. I'll add this: One thing you really ought to find out – and this is where your tax advisor is likely able to help – is whether your company's stock options plan use qualified incentive stock options (ISO) or non-qualified stock options (NQO or NSO). See Wikipedia - Incentive stock option for details. From my understanding, only if your plan is a qualified (or statutory) ISO and you hold the shares for at least 1 year of the date of exercise and 2 years from the date of the option grant could your gain be considered a long-term capital gain. As opposed to: if your options are non-qualified, then your gain may be considered ordinary income no matter how long you wait – in which case there's no tax benefit to waiting to cash out. In terms of hedging the risk if you do choose to hold long, here are some ideas: Sell just enough stock at exercise (i.e. taking some tax hit up front) to at least recover your principal, so your original money is no longer at risk, or If your company has publicly listed options – which is unlikely, if they are very small – then you could purchase put options to insure against losses in your stock. Try a symbol lookup at the CBOE. Note: Hedging with put options is an advanced strategy and I suggest you learn more and seek advice from a pro if you want to consider this route. You'll also need to find out if there are restrictions on trading your employer's public stock or options – many companies have restrictions or black-out periods on employee trading, especially for people who have inside knowledge."
},
{
"docid": "495791",
"title": "",
"text": "No, they certainly are not compensated the same way. Some are paid by commission that they earn from the products they sell (ie, certain mutual funds, insurance, etc.) Others are paid for their advice based on an hourly fee, or a percentage of the portfolio you have to invest. This is a great question, because too many of us just assume that if someone is in the business, they will give trustworthy advice. This may certainly be the case, but think about it, the financial planner at your bank (who also is a mutual fund specialist - just flip that handy business card over) is employed by Bank X. Bank X sells mutual funds, GIC's, insurance, all kinds of great products. That Bank X employee is not likely to tell you about products from Bank Z down the street that might be a better fit for you. Find a fee based planner, someone you can pay by the hour for advice, and let them help you review products across the industry. It's like asking your bank for mortgage advice...they will discuss the options THEY offer, but may not tell you about a deal down the street. Using a mortgage broker helps you find the best deal across the board. I believe the current issue of Moneysense magazine has an insert discussing planners. Their magazine and website (www.moneysense.ca) are good sources of reliable, Canadian financial advice."
},
{
"docid": "425651",
"title": "",
"text": "All the above advices plus this: For you first house, you should start smaller. Buy a 100k or less condo if possible, then grow from there. You sell every 5 years or so when the market is favorable and you will slowly get to that nice 250k house."
},
{
"docid": "382384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\""
},
{
"docid": "415705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\""
}
] |
6467 | Advice on strategy for when to sell | [
{
"docid": "23217",
"title": "",
"text": "It was not 100% clear if you have held all of these stocks for over a year. Therefore, depending on your income tax bracket, it might make sense to hold on to the stock until you have held the individual stock for a year to only be taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Also, you need to take into account the Net Investment Income Tax(NIIT), if your current modified adjusted income is above the current threshold. Beyond these, I would think that you would want to apply the same methodology that caused you to buy these in the first place, as it seems to be working well for you. 2 & 3. No. You trigger a taxable event and therefore have to pay capital gains tax on any gains. If you have a loss in the stock and repurchase the stock within 30 days, you don't get to recognize the loss and have to add the loss to your basis in the stock (Wash Sales Rules)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "201736",
"title": "",
"text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster."
},
{
"docid": "209649",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is that the people who know aren't saying. [Lisa Pollack](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/author/lspollack/) at FT has made a heroic effort at figuring it out, but working from what is publicly known and making some reasonable assumptions she can't even find $1 billion of losses, much less 9. All we know for sure is that JPM sold massive amounts of protection on a particular CDS index. Roughly, that means that they sold insurance on a group of 125 companies, and they would lose money if one of those companies went bankrupt or looked like it might go bankrupt, and make money if those companies look less likely to go bankrupt. However! They were certainly combining that position with other offsetting positions. Since their banking business loses money when companies go bankrupt, it would make sense if they protected themselves with an even more massive position that *made* money when companies went bankrupt. A common strategy is to bet that the price of 1 thing will go up, and the price of a very similar thing will go down, so you are protected and can make money if both prices go up or if both go down. However, if the 2 things are not as similar as you thought, you can lose money from both bets. That's what seems to have happened to JPM. Dimon has basically said that JPM screwed up their calculations, and positions that they thought were offsetting were not. What also seems likely is that other companies figured out that JP Morgan had massive amounts of certain things that they needed to sell, so JPM was forced to sell at bad prices. You never want to play poker against someone who can see your hole cards. So my speculative theory is that the main point of the trading was to protect JPM if other companies went bankrupt, but they did it with a complicated strategy that included selling protection. They got the calculations wrong, and then they were forced to sell at bad prices to other companies who knew they had to sell."
},
{
"docid": "415705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\""
},
{
"docid": "99857",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\""
},
{
"docid": "526499",
"title": "",
"text": "The rental income is indeed taxable income, but you reduce the taxable portion of it by deducting expenses (including mortgage interest, maintenance, insurance, HOA, real estate tax, and of course depreciation). Due to the depreciation, you may end up breaking even, or having very little taxable income. Note that when you sell the property, your basis is reduced by the depreciation you were allowed to deduct (even if you haven't deducted it for whatever reason), and also the personal residence exclusion might no longer be applicable - i.e.: you'll have to pay capital gains tax. You will not be able to deduct a loss though if you sell now, so it may be better to depreciate it as a rental, rather then sell at a loss that won't affect your taxes. Also, consider the fact that the basis for the depreciation is not the basis you currently have in the property (because you're under water). You have to remember that when calculating the taxes. This is not a tax advice, and you should seek a professional help."
},
{
"docid": "217837",
"title": "",
"text": "why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected."
},
{
"docid": "104448",
"title": "",
"text": "Since I got downvoted for poking fun at > I've come to realize I don't really enjoy the engineering aspects of my job nor the industry, but I enjoy corporate culture. Here's some info for those actually interested: https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/corporate-strategy-vs-corporate-development https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-finance-jobs/ https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/day-in-life-corporate-finance-analyst/ https://www.quora.com/Strategic-Management-What-is-the-typical-day-in-the-life-of-a-corporate-strategy-consultant https://www.mergersandinquisitions.com/corporate-development-on-the-job/ Corporate finance (Controllers, FP&A, Treasury) is a catch-all for jobs that quantify and manage a company's money. This includes figuring out how much money the business is making, budgeting, and gaining access to money for future plans. They spend most of their day on excel, browsing reddit, and complaining that other departments don't take them seriously. There is work-life balance, unless your company is at risk of bankruptcy, but pay will likely be the least of this group. Corporate strategy/development is about finding ways to achieve the vision/goals of the C-suite. Corporate development usually are ex-IB people and focused on finding companies to acquire, integrate, and achieve the goals of the acquisition (synergies, returns on investment, technology/product acquisition). Corporate strategy is usually broader and could be focused on improving the brand, figuring out new uses for a product, finding new partners, or generally looking for good ideas to improve the company. Business development usually is about growing the company through finding new customers, markets, or partnerships. Instead of selling specific products or services, you're selling your company's abilities and brand. I'd say, with your engineering background, if you can swing a corporate strategy gig, you'd have the greatest opps for any VP you decide. I'd say if you want to sell or are good at selling, then business development may be compelling. If I were you, corporate finance would be the least appealing unless you are truly interested in finance."
},
{
"docid": "425651",
"title": "",
"text": "All the above advices plus this: For you first house, you should start smaller. Buy a 100k or less condo if possible, then grow from there. You sell every 5 years or so when the market is favorable and you will slowly get to that nice 250k house."
},
{
"docid": "472051",
"title": "",
"text": "It's a matter of opinion. As a general rule, my advice is to take charge of your own investments. Sending money to someone else to have them invest it, though it is a common practice, seems unwise to me. This particular fund seems especially risky to me, because there is no known portfolio. Normally, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have a specific portfolio of known properties, or at least a property strategy that you know going in. Simply handing money over to someone else with no known properties, or specific strategy is buying a pig in a poke."
},
{
"docid": "495791",
"title": "",
"text": "No, they certainly are not compensated the same way. Some are paid by commission that they earn from the products they sell (ie, certain mutual funds, insurance, etc.) Others are paid for their advice based on an hourly fee, or a percentage of the portfolio you have to invest. This is a great question, because too many of us just assume that if someone is in the business, they will give trustworthy advice. This may certainly be the case, but think about it, the financial planner at your bank (who also is a mutual fund specialist - just flip that handy business card over) is employed by Bank X. Bank X sells mutual funds, GIC's, insurance, all kinds of great products. That Bank X employee is not likely to tell you about products from Bank Z down the street that might be a better fit for you. Find a fee based planner, someone you can pay by the hour for advice, and let them help you review products across the industry. It's like asking your bank for mortgage advice...they will discuss the options THEY offer, but may not tell you about a deal down the street. Using a mortgage broker helps you find the best deal across the board. I believe the current issue of Moneysense magazine has an insert discussing planners. Their magazine and website (www.moneysense.ca) are good sources of reliable, Canadian financial advice."
},
{
"docid": "101021",
"title": "",
"text": "> Start a funeral home or casket/urn selling company -- profit off of the death of the Boomers. The problem is that the Boomers will only start dying when GenX starts retiring. While your advice made me chuckle, it is better directed at Millenials. :)"
},
{
"docid": "534755",
"title": "",
"text": "There is a strategy called merger-arbitrage where you buy the stock of the acquired company when it sells for less than the final acquisition price. Usually the price will rise to about the acquisition price fairly rapidly after the merge is announced, so you have to move fast. The danger is that the merger gets called off (regulatory reasons, the acquired company board votes no) and you get left holding shares bought at a price higher than the price after the merger collapses. This is kind of an advanced strategy and a tough one to back test since each M&A deal is unique."
},
{
"docid": "159076",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments. ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you. Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example. Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run. Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA. The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets. Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor. Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low. This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea. You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016. Repeat each year. You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run. You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case. That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account). You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA. Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later. Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called \"\"tax loss harvesting\"\"). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes. This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor. It's up to you. You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated. For many of us, this education is fun. Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to. High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances. Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those. To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours.\""
},
{
"docid": "226496",
"title": "",
"text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:"
},
{
"docid": "240023",
"title": "",
"text": "One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put. The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put. If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost. The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies."
},
{
"docid": "107045",
"title": "",
"text": "Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:"
},
{
"docid": "233472",
"title": "",
"text": "Other people have belabored the point that you will get a better rate on a 15 year mortgage, typically around 1.25 % lower. The lower rate makes the 15 year mortgage financially wiser than paying a 30 year mortgage off in 15 years. So go with the 15 year if your income is stable, you will never lose your job, your appliances never break, your vehicles never need major repairs, the pipes in your house never burst, you and your spouse never get sick, and you have no kids. Or if you do have kids, they happen to have good eyesight, straight teeth, they have no aspirations for college, don't play any expensive sports, and they will never ask for help paying the rent when they get older and move out. But if any of those things are likely possibilities, the 30 year mortgage would give you some flexibility to cover short term cash shortages by reverting to your normal 30 year payment for a month or two. Now, the financially wise may balk at this because you are supposed to have enough cash in reserves to cover stuff like this, and that is good advice. But how many people struggle to maintain those reserves when they buy a new house? Consider putting together spreadsheet and calculating the interest cost difference between the two strategies. How much more will the 30 year mortgage cost you in interest if you pay it off in 15 years? That amount equates to the cost of an insurance policy for dealing with an occasional cash shortage. Do you want to pay thousands in extra interest for that insurance? (it is pretty pricey insurance) One strategy would be to go with the 30 year now, make the extra principal payments to keep you on a 15 year schedule, see how life goes, and refinance to a 15 year mortgage after a couple years if everything goes well and your cash reserves are strong. Unfortunately, rates are likely to rise over the next couple years, which makes this strategy less attractive. If at all possible, go with the 15 year so you lock in these near historic low rates. Consider buying less house or dropping back to the 30 year if you are worried that your cash reserves won't be able to handle life's little surprises."
},
{
"docid": "527076",
"title": "",
"text": "Question: are you saying that buying a call is better than buying a vertical spread regardless of fees, or only because of fees? If the former, you are saying that buying a call and selling a vertical spread will always be profitable, which effectively means you're going short an out-of-the-money call. While that's a good strategy, it doesn't guarantee profit, and will lose money exactly when the vertical spread is a better strategy than buying the call outright. The most direct answer to your question in comments: if the stock goes down, you lose less money with the vertical spread than you do with a simple call. In return for this lower risk, you give up gains if the stock goes above the higher calls strike price."
},
{
"docid": "588029",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Let's pretend that the author of that article is not selling anything and is trying to help you succeed in life. I have nothing against sales, but that author is throwing out a lot of nonsense to sell his stuff and is creating a state of urgency so that people adopt this mindset. It's clever and it obviously works. From a pure time perspective, most people won't make enough money to run their own business and be as profitable as if they worked for a company. This is a reality that few want to acknowledge. If you invested in yourself and your career with the same discipline and urgency as an entrepreneur, most people would be better off at a company when you consider the benefits and the fact that employees have a full 7.5% of social security paid by their employer (entrepreneurs see the full 15% while employees don't). Why do I start here, because this author isn't telling you that the more people take his advice, the more their earnings will regress to the mean or below. In fact, most of my entrepreneur friends have to go back to work when their reality fails after they burn through their savings. 401ks are not a perfect system, but there are more 401k millionaires now than ever before this, and people who give the author's advice are always looking to avoid doing what they need to do - save for retirement. Most people I know sadly realize this in their 50s, when it's too late, and start trying to \"\"catch up.\"\" I don't blame the author for this, as he knows his article will appeal to younger people who don't have the wisdom to see that his advice hasn't been great for most. The reality is that for most people 401ks will provide tax advantaged savings that you can use when you're older; taxes will eat at your earnings, so these accounts really help. Finally, look at the article again especially the part you quote. He says inflation will carve out what you save, yet inflation is less than 2%. Where is he getting this from? In the past decade, we've seen numerous deflationary spirals and the market overall has come back from the fall in 2009. Again, this isn't \"\"good enough\"\" for this author, so buy his stuff to learn how to succeed! There have been numerous decades (50s,70s) that were much worse for investors than this past one.\""
}
] |
6467 | Advice on strategy for when to sell | [
{
"docid": "346641",
"title": "",
"text": "Consider trailing stop losses maybe 5% below your profit target, if you want a simplistic answer."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "535918",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What would be the best strategy to avoid paying income taxes on the sale after I move to another US state? Leaving the US and terminating your US residency before the sale closes. Otherwise consider checking your home country's tax treaty with the US. In any case, for proper tax planning you should employ a licensed tax adviser - an EA, CPA or an attorney licensed in your State (the one you'd be when the sale closes). No-one else is legally allowed to provide you tax advice on the matter. Because the company abroad is befriended, I have control over when (and e.g. in how many chunks) the earnings of the sale flow into my LLC. So I can plan where I live when that money hits my US account. I'm not familiar with the term \"\"befriended\"\" in this context, but form what I understand your description - its a shell corporation under your own control. This means that the transfer of money between the corporation and your LLC is of no consequence, you constructively received the money when the corporation got it, not the LLC. Your fundamental misunderstanding is that there's importance to when the money hits your US bank account. This is irrelevant. The US taxes your worldwide income, so it is taxed when you earn it, not when you transfer it into the country (as opposed to some other countries, for example India or the UK). As such, in your current scheme, it seems to me that you're breaking the US tax law. This is my personal impression, of course, get a professional advice from a licensed tax professional as I defined earlier.\""
},
{
"docid": "233472",
"title": "",
"text": "Other people have belabored the point that you will get a better rate on a 15 year mortgage, typically around 1.25 % lower. The lower rate makes the 15 year mortgage financially wiser than paying a 30 year mortgage off in 15 years. So go with the 15 year if your income is stable, you will never lose your job, your appliances never break, your vehicles never need major repairs, the pipes in your house never burst, you and your spouse never get sick, and you have no kids. Or if you do have kids, they happen to have good eyesight, straight teeth, they have no aspirations for college, don't play any expensive sports, and they will never ask for help paying the rent when they get older and move out. But if any of those things are likely possibilities, the 30 year mortgage would give you some flexibility to cover short term cash shortages by reverting to your normal 30 year payment for a month or two. Now, the financially wise may balk at this because you are supposed to have enough cash in reserves to cover stuff like this, and that is good advice. But how many people struggle to maintain those reserves when they buy a new house? Consider putting together spreadsheet and calculating the interest cost difference between the two strategies. How much more will the 30 year mortgage cost you in interest if you pay it off in 15 years? That amount equates to the cost of an insurance policy for dealing with an occasional cash shortage. Do you want to pay thousands in extra interest for that insurance? (it is pretty pricey insurance) One strategy would be to go with the 30 year now, make the extra principal payments to keep you on a 15 year schedule, see how life goes, and refinance to a 15 year mortgage after a couple years if everything goes well and your cash reserves are strong. Unfortunately, rates are likely to rise over the next couple years, which makes this strategy less attractive. If at all possible, go with the 15 year so you lock in these near historic low rates. Consider buying less house or dropping back to the 30 year if you are worried that your cash reserves won't be able to handle life's little surprises."
},
{
"docid": "528475",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\""
},
{
"docid": "339332",
"title": "",
"text": "The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull."
},
{
"docid": "472051",
"title": "",
"text": "It's a matter of opinion. As a general rule, my advice is to take charge of your own investments. Sending money to someone else to have them invest it, though it is a common practice, seems unwise to me. This particular fund seems especially risky to me, because there is no known portfolio. Normally, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have a specific portfolio of known properties, or at least a property strategy that you know going in. Simply handing money over to someone else with no known properties, or specific strategy is buying a pig in a poke."
},
{
"docid": "228889",
"title": "",
"text": "The best advice I've heard regarding market conditions is: Buy into fear, and sell into greed. That is, get in when everyone is a bear and predicting economic collapse. Start selling when you hear stock picks at parties and family functions. That said. You are better off in the long term not letting emotion (of you or the market) control your investing decisions). Use dollar cost averaging to put a fixed amount in at fixed intervals and you will most likely end up better off for it."
},
{
"docid": "122404",
"title": "",
"text": "In a year with no income, the best advice is to convert existing IRA money to Roth. This lets you take advantage of the 'zero' bracket, the combination of your exemption and standard deduction. This adds to $10,300 for a single person. Other than that, if you are determined to take the money out, just do it. There would be a 10% penalty of the growth, but the original deposit comes out tax free anyway. Edit - There's a rule that if you sell your entire Roth account (i.e. all Roth accounts, you can't pick one of a few) and have a loss, you can take that loss. (Per Dilip's comment, this strategy is pretty moot, it's not a loss taken against other income as a stock loss would potentially be))"
},
{
"docid": "335375",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Once again I offer some sage advice - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Michael offers an excellent method to decide what to do. Note, he doesn't base the decision on the tax implication. If you are truly indifferent to holding the stock, taxwise, you might consider selling just the profitable shares if that's enough cash. Then sell shares at a loss each year if you have no other gains. That will let you pay the long term gain rate on the shares sold this year, but offset regular income in years to come. But. I'm hard pressed to believe you are indifferent, and I'd use Michel's approach to decide. Updated - The New Law is simply a rule requiring brokers to track basis. Your situation doesn't change at all. When you sell the shares, you need to identify which shares you want to sell. For older shares, the tracking is your responsibility, that's all.\""
},
{
"docid": "320587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \"\"industry insider\"\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \"\"It has to come back eventually\"\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \"\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\"\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\""
},
{
"docid": "303754",
"title": "",
"text": "If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans."
},
{
"docid": "592892",
"title": "",
"text": "It's a good question, I am amazed how few people ask this. To summarise: is it really worth paying substantial fees to arrange a generic investment though your high street bank? Almost certainly not. However, one caveat: You didn't mention what kind of fund(s) you want to invest in, or for how long. You also mention an “advice fee”. Are you actually getting financial advice – i.e. a personal recommendation relating to one or more specific investments, based on the investments' suitability for your circumstances – and are you content with the quality of that advice? If you are, it may be worth it. If they've advised you to choose this fund that has the potential to achieve your desired returns while matching the amount of risk you are willing to take, then the advice could be worth paying for. It entirely depends how much guidance you need. Or are you choosing your own fund anyway? It sounds to me like you have done some research on your own, you believe the building society adviser is “trying to sell” a fund and you aren't entirely convinced by their recommendation. If you are happy making your own investment decisions and are merely looking for a place to execute that trade, the deal you have described via your bank would almost certainly be poor value – and you're looking in the right places for an alternative. ~ ~ ~ On to the active-vs-passive fund debate: That AMC of 1.43% you mention would not be unreasonable for an actively managed fund that you strongly feel will outperform the market. However, you also mention ETFs (a passive type of fund) and believe that after charges they might offer at least as good net performance as many actively managed funds. Good point – although please note that many comparisons of this nature compare passives to all actively managed funds (the good and bad, including e.g. poorly managed life company funds). A better comparison would be to compare the fund managers you're considering vs. the benchmark – although obviously this is past performance and won't necessarily be repeated. At the crux of the matter is cost, of course. So if you're looking for low-cost funds, the cost of the platform is also significant. Therefore if you are comfortable going with a passive investment strategy, let's look at how much that might cost you on the platform you mentioned, Hargreaves Lansdown. Two of the most popular FTSE All-Share tracker funds among Hargreaves Lansdown clients are: (You'll notice they have slightly different performance btw. That's a funny thing with trackers. They all aim to track but have a slightly different way of trading to achieve it.) To hold either of these funds in a Hargreaves Lansdown account you'll also pay the 0.45% platform charge (this percentage tapers off for portolio values higher than £250,000 if you get that far). So in total to track the FTSE All Share with these funds through an HL account you would be paying: This gives you an indication of how much less you could pay to run a DIY portfolio based on passive funds. NB. Both the above are a 100% equities allocation with a large UK companies weighting, so won't suit a lower risk approach. You'll also end up invested indiscriminately in eg. mining, tobacco, oil companies, whoever's in the index – perhaps you'd prefer to be more selective. If you feel you need financial advice (with Nationwide) or portfolio management (with Nutmeg) you have to judge whether these services are worth the added charges. It sounds like you're not convinced! In which case, all the best with a low-cost passive funds strategy."
},
{
"docid": "362473",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\""
},
{
"docid": "58939",
"title": "",
"text": "The general advice seems to be to sell online. But my issue here is that, a large amount of stock would likely come from Etsy creators - Why would a customer choose my online store to buy an item when they could buy the exact same item directly from the creator for £x cheaper?"
},
{
"docid": "69753",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes this would be the same as when a corporation sells bonds. If it is the same as you describe. A product page would make it possible to give you a definitive answer. Also I strongly advice against taking out this type of loan if not for investment"
},
{
"docid": "64263",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is known as \"\"Zone Pricing\"\" or \"\"Geographical Pricing\"\". http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/19/business/fi-calprice19 Such price variations may seem odd, but they are not unique to Anaheim. On any given day, in any major U.S. city, a single brand of gasoline will sell for a wide range of prices even when the cost to make and deliver the fuel is the same. The primary culprit is zone pricing, a secret and pervasive oil company strategy to boost profits by charging dealers different amounts for fuel based on traffic volume, station amenities, nearby household incomes, the strength of competitors and other factors. It's a controversial strategy, but the courts have thus far deemed it legal, and the Federal Trade Commission recently said the effect on consumers was ambiguous because some customers got hurt by higher prices while others benefited from lower ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_pricing Zone pricing, as practiced in the gasoline industry in the United States, is the pricing of gasoline based on a complex and secret weighting of factors, such as the number of competing stations, number of vehicles, average traffic flow, population density, and geographic characteristics. This can result in two branded gas stations only a few miles apart selling gasoline at a price differential of as much as $0.50 per gallon. But the short answer is \"\"because they can\"\". It's legal, provided that some people are paying less while others are paying more. Essentially the larger, richer audience is subsidizing the product for other areas. It's not terribly different than the way most drugs are priced in the world.\""
},
{
"docid": "201736",
"title": "",
"text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster."
},
{
"docid": "573612",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I reread your question. You are not asking about the validity of selling a particular stock after a bit of an increase but a group of stocks. We don't know how many. This is the S&P for the past 12 months. Trading at 1025-1200 or so means that 80-100 points is an 8% move. I count 4 such moves during this time. The philosophy of \"\"you can't go wrong taking a gain\"\" is tough for me to grasp as it offers no advice on when to get (back) in. Studies by firms such as Dalbar (you can google for some of their public material) show data that supports the fact that average investors lag the market by a huge amount. 20 years ending 12/31/08 the S&P returned 8.35%, investor equity returns showed 1.87%. I can only conclude that this is a result of buying high and selling low, not staying the course. The data also leads me to believe the best advice one can give to people we meet in these circumstances is to invest in index funds, keeping your expenses low as you can. I've said this since read Jack Bogle decades ago, and this advice would have yielded about 8.25% over the 20 years, beating the average investor by far, by guaranteeing lagging the average by 10 basis points or so. A summary of the more extensive report citing the numbers I referenced is available for down load - QAIB 2015 - Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior. It's quite an eye-opener and a worthy read. (The original report was dated 2009, but the link broke, so I've updated to the latest report, 2015)\""
},
{
"docid": "247101",
"title": "",
"text": "The main thing you're missing is that while you bear all the costs of manipulating the market, you have no special ability to capture the profits yourself. You make money by buying low and selling high. But if you want to push the price up, you have to keep buying even though the price is getting high. So you are buying high. This gives everyone, including you, the opportunity to sell high and make money. But you will have no special ability to capture that -- others will see the price going up and will start selling within a tiny fraction of a second. You will have to keep buying all the shares they keep selling at the artificially inflated price. So as you keep trying to buy more and more to push the price up enough to make money, everyone else is selling their shares to you. You have to buy more and more shares at an inflated price as everyone else is selling while you are still buying. When you switch to selling, the price will drop instantly, since there's nobody to buy from you at the inflated price. The opportunity you created has already been taken -- by the very people you were trading with. Billions have been lost by people who thought this strategy would work."
},
{
"docid": "98457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You need to understand how various entities make their money. Once you know that, you can determine whether their interests are aligned with yours. For example, a full-service broker makes money when you buy and sell stocks. They therefore have in interest in you doing lots of buying, and selling, not in making you money. Or, no-fee financial advisors make their money through commissions on what they sell you, which means their interests are served by selling you those investments with high commissions, not the investments that would serve you best. Financial media makes their money through attracting viewers/readers and selling advertising. That is their business, and they are not in the business of giving good advice. There are lots of good investments - index funds are a great example - that don't get much attention because there isn't any money in them. In fact, the majority of \"\"wall street\"\" is not aligned with your interests, so be skeptical of the financial industry in general. There are \"\"for fee\"\" financial advisors who you pay directly; their interests are fairly well aligned with yours. There is a fair amount of good information at The Motley Fool\""
}
] |
6467 | Advice on strategy for when to sell | [
{
"docid": "367313",
"title": "",
"text": "You sell when you think the stock is over valued, or you need the money, or you are going to need the money in the next 5 years. I buy and hold a lot. I bought IBM in 8th grade 1980. I still own it. I bought 3 share it from $190 and its now worth $5,000 do to dividend reinvestment and splits. That stock did nothing for a thirteen years except pay a dividend but then it went up by 1800% the next 20 and paid dividends. So I agree with other posters the whole pigs get slaughtered thing is silly and just makes fund managers more money. Think if you bought aapl at $8 and sold at $12. The thing went to 600 and split 7-1 and is back to $120. My parents made a ton holding Grainger for years and I have had good success with MMM and MSFT owning those for decades."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "303754",
"title": "",
"text": "If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans."
},
{
"docid": "576364",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You're forgetting the fundamental issue, that you never have to actually exercise the options you buy. You can either sell them to someone else or, if they're out of the money, let them expire and take the loss. It isn't uncommon at all for people to buy both a put and call option (this is a \"\"straddle\"\" when the strike price of both the put and call are the same). From Investopedia.com: A straddle is an options strategy in which the investor holds a position in both a call and put with the same strike price and expiration date, paying both premiums. This strategy allows the investor to make a profit regardless of whether the price of the security goes up or down, assuming the stock price changes somewhat significantly. Read more: Straddle http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/straddle.asp#ixzz4ZYytV0pT\""
},
{
"docid": "319793",
"title": "",
"text": "You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits."
},
{
"docid": "240023",
"title": "",
"text": "One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put. The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put. If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost. The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies."
},
{
"docid": "399203",
"title": "",
"text": "\"J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax is, remarkably, a great read. It's a line by line review of the tax forms, and offers commentary and examples for every scenario. Of course, it's updated every year to reflect new rules and numbers. I actually read it from cover to cover the first year I started working. It's not going to offer convoluted strategies to use, but, you'll understand your tax return well enough to respond to the advice you encounter elsewhere. To mhoran's point - \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" Taxes are important, but should take a back step to earning and investing. Those who didn't sell at the height of the dotcon bubble \"\"to avoid the big tax bill\"\" only saw in hindsight that paying taxes is part of success not failure.\""
},
{
"docid": "367391",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\""
},
{
"docid": "209649",
"title": "",
"text": "The short answer is that the people who know aren't saying. [Lisa Pollack](http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/author/lspollack/) at FT has made a heroic effort at figuring it out, but working from what is publicly known and making some reasonable assumptions she can't even find $1 billion of losses, much less 9. All we know for sure is that JPM sold massive amounts of protection on a particular CDS index. Roughly, that means that they sold insurance on a group of 125 companies, and they would lose money if one of those companies went bankrupt or looked like it might go bankrupt, and make money if those companies look less likely to go bankrupt. However! They were certainly combining that position with other offsetting positions. Since their banking business loses money when companies go bankrupt, it would make sense if they protected themselves with an even more massive position that *made* money when companies went bankrupt. A common strategy is to bet that the price of 1 thing will go up, and the price of a very similar thing will go down, so you are protected and can make money if both prices go up or if both go down. However, if the 2 things are not as similar as you thought, you can lose money from both bets. That's what seems to have happened to JPM. Dimon has basically said that JPM screwed up their calculations, and positions that they thought were offsetting were not. What also seems likely is that other companies figured out that JP Morgan had massive amounts of certain things that they needed to sell, so JPM was forced to sell at bad prices. You never want to play poker against someone who can see your hole cards. So my speculative theory is that the main point of the trading was to protect JPM if other companies went bankrupt, but they did it with a complicated strategy that included selling protection. They got the calculations wrong, and then they were forced to sell at bad prices to other companies who knew they had to sell."
},
{
"docid": "130941",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is absolutely normal for your investments to go down at times. If you pull money out whenever your investments decrease in value, you lock in the losses. It is better to do a bit of research and come up with some sort of strategy about how you will manage your investments. One such strategy is to choose a target asset allocation (or let the \"\"target date\"\" fund choose it for you) and never sell until you need the money for retirement. Some would advocate various other strategies that involve timing the market. The important thing is that you find a strategy that you can live with and that provides you with enough confidence that you won't buy and sell at random. Acting on gut feelings and selling whenever you feel queasy will likely lead to worse outcomes in the long run.\""
},
{
"docid": "195222",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As foundational material, read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. It will help prepare you to digest and critically evaluate other investing advice as you form your strategy.\""
},
{
"docid": "504235",
"title": "",
"text": "There is an approach which suggests that each weekend you should review your positions as if they were stocks to be considered for purchase on Monday. I can't offer advice on picking stocks, but it's fair to say that you need to determine if the criteria you used to buy it the first time is still valid. I own a stock trading at over $300, purchased for $5. Its P/E is still reasonable as the darn E just keeps rising. Unless your criteria is to simply grab small gains, which in my opinion is a losing strategy, an 8% move up would never be a reason to sell, in and of itself. Doing so strikes me as day trading, which I advise againgst."
},
{
"docid": "539680",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no rule-of-thumb that fits every person and every situation. However, the reasons why this advice is generally applicable to most people are simple. Why it is good to be more aggressive when you are young The stock market has historically gone up, on average, over the long term. However, on its way up, it has ups and downs. If you won't need your investment returns for many years to come, you can afford to put a large portion of your investment into the volatile stock market, because you have plenty of time for the market to recover from temporary downturns. Why it is good to be more conservative when you are older Over a short-term period, there is no certainty that the stock market will go up. When you are in retirement, most people withdraw/sell their investments for income. (And once you reach a certain age, you are required to withdraw some of your retirement savings.) If the market is in a temporary downturn, you would be forced to \"\"sell low,\"\" losing a significant portion of your investment. Exceptions Of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines. If you are a young person who can't help but watch your investments closely and gets depressed when seeing the value go down during a market downturn, perhaps you should move some of your investment out of stocks. It will cost you money in the long term, but may help you sleep at night. If you are retired, but have more saved than you could possibly need, you can afford to risk more in the stock market. On average, you'll come out ahead, and if a downturn happens when you need to sell, it won't affect your overall situation much.\""
},
{
"docid": "564957",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong)."
},
{
"docid": "201736",
"title": "",
"text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster."
},
{
"docid": "251003",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true. Roughly, the mathematical analogue of \"\"higher risk and higher reward\"\" is \"\"higher standard deviation and higher mean\"\". In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean). Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart - from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns. With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on. Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out. If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again. Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age. What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains.\""
},
{
"docid": "528475",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\""
},
{
"docid": "99857",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\""
},
{
"docid": "365228",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In Orange County (southern California), one agent has blogged pretty extensively about using rental parity to determine when it is time to rent or buy. Rental parity is achieved when the cost of renting is equal to the cost of owning; in theory, if you buy when a home is selling above rental parity, you're overpaying, and you'd be better off renting. He has many posts on the subject; a few you might care to read would be this one, and this other one. You might get a better sense of how to calculate rental parity by looking at an example or two. There is also the NY Times calculator mentioned in other responses, and the Patrick.net calculator. Be aware, the calculators are garbage in, garbage out. In other words, you have to consider the input carefully. In particular, I found the defaults on the Patrick.net calculator were not realistic. So far as I am aware, the agent at OCHousingNews does not make his calculations public (though I have never actually asked). He's using a spreadsheet which I have never seen. That is another option, if you care to do this kind of analysis yourself. Search around, you can find a spreadsheet that someone has posted here and there. But keeping something like that updated is not trivial. In my experience, in practice, it's difficult to be totally rational and mathematical when it comes to many decisions, and as other respondents have noted, where you live is one of those decisions. Too, saying \"\"buy when rental parity is achieved\"\" is sort of like saying \"\"buy low, sell high,\"\" as though it were perfectly clear when stocks are at a bottom and/or a peak. In our case, we bought a house about 12 years ago, before rental parity was being discussed in the blogsphere. Looking back, we supposedly bought at the wrong time, according to that agent's rating system, but it turned out fine for us. Our house has appreciated, whereas the S&P 500 is basically where it was 12 years ago. Had we been thinking in terms of rental parity, we might not have bought at that time. Of course, your mileage may vary, and hindsight is always 20/20. I think the most helpful advice I can offer was something I got from a real estate agent around the time we were looking. He told me \"\"when you're looking at houses, be sure you like the floor plan and the location, because those two things are not easily changed.\"\" That advice really helped us to see things more clearly.\""
},
{
"docid": "217837",
"title": "",
"text": "why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected."
},
{
"docid": "317803",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Maria, there are a few questions I think you must consider when considering this problem. Do fundamental or technical strategies provide meaningful information? Are the signals they produce actionable? In my experience, and many quantitative traders will probably say similar things, technical analysis is unlikely to provide anything meaningful. Of course you may find phenomena when looking back on data and a particular indicator, but this is often after the fact. One cannot action-ably trade these observations. On the other hand, it does seem that fundamentals can play a crucial role in the overall (typically long run) dynamics of stock movement. Here are two examples, Technical: suppose we follow stock X and buy every time the price crosses above the 30 day moving average. There is one obvious issue with this strategy - why does this signal have significance? If the method is designed arbitrarily then the answer is that it does not have significance. Moreover, much of the research supports that stocks move close to a geometric brownian motion with jumps. This supports the implication that the system is meaningless - if the probability of up or down is always close to 50/50 then why would an average based on the price be predictive? Fundamental: Suppose we buy stocks with the best P/E ratios (defined by some cutoff). This makes sense from a logical perspective and may have some long run merit. However, there is always a chance that an internal blowup or some macro event creates a large loss. A blended approach: for sake of balance perhaps we consider fundamentals as a good long-term indication of growth (what quants might call drift). We then restrict ourselves to equities in a particular index - say the S&P500. We compare the growth of these stocks vs. their P/E ratios and possibly do some regression. A natural strategy would be to sell those which have exceeded the expected return given the P/E ratio and buy those which have underperformed. Since all equities we are considering are in the same index, they are most likely somewhat correlated (especially when traded in baskets). If we sell 10 equities that are deemed \"\"too high\"\" and buy 10 which are \"\"too low\"\" we will be taking a neutral position and betting on convergence of the spread to the market average growth. We have this constructed a hedged position using a fundamental metric (and some helpful statistics). This method can be categorized as a type of index arbitrage and is done (roughly) in a similar fashion. If you dig through some data (yahoo finance is great) over the past 5 years on just the S&P500 I'm sure you'll find plenty of signals (and perhaps profitable if you calibrate with specific numbers). Sorry for the long and rambling style but I wanted to hit a few key points and show a clever methods of using fundamentals.\""
}
] |
6468 | Why deep in the money options have very low liquidity | [
{
"docid": "548970",
"title": "",
"text": "There is less liquidity because they are less volatile. Option traders aren't exactly risk averse (read: are degenerate gamblers) and the other market participants that use options don't have much use for deep in the money options. Also, just trade more liquid assets and equities if you want liquid options. At-the-money options, and at-the-money options strategies have hundreds and thousand percent payoffs on relatively mundane price changes in the underlying asset."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "415705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\""
},
{
"docid": "425723",
"title": "",
"text": "The liquidity of options is really not a problem, as the option price is determined by the underlying price, and even if there was very little liquidity in the option itself, market makers are required to make a market at the price determined by the underlying. As long as the underlying has enough liquidity your slippage in trading the options should not be too much of a problem. You can read this ETO Market Making Scheme document for more details."
},
{
"docid": "428399",
"title": "",
"text": "An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money."
},
{
"docid": "277074",
"title": "",
"text": "It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy."
},
{
"docid": "573276",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're in the US, you have some no down payment options, but you still need some closing costs money, that can potentially be negotiated with the seller. There are fha loans which have very low down payment options, 80/20 loans which are 100% coverage, hud assistance on fha to get a 100% loan. Your 401k can be leveraged into the loan as 35% collateral paying 7% interest on a traditional no recourse loan. These options are available with a work history and if you're not taking on more debt than you can pay with 30% salary. Finding an angel investor will be harder than working with the bank, they have much less room for risk. It's easier to find a current landlord and asking about a rent to own, though, this will be more expensive than a mortgage. To be honest though, most people are in a rush to be house poor, living on the edge of affordability. I don't know your situation, but I do know that rushing into things can be very expensive in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "235972",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You have several options depending on your tolerance for risk. Certainly open an investment account with your bank or through any of the popular discount brokerage services. Then take however much money you're willing to invest and start earning some returns! You can split up the money into various investments, too. A typical default strategy is to take any money you won't need for the long term and put it in an Index Fund like the S&P 500 (or a European equivalent). Yes, it could go down, especially in the short term, but you can sell shares at any time so you're only 2-3 days away at any time from liquidity. Historically this money will generate a positive return in the long run. For smaller time frames, a short-term bond fund often gives a slightly better return than a money market account and some people (like me!) use short-term bond funds as if it were a money market account. There is a very low but real risk of having the fund lose value. So you could take a certain percentage of your money and keep it \"\"close\"\" in a bond fund. Likewise, you can sell shares at any time, win or lose and have the cash available within a couple days.\""
},
{
"docid": "139089",
"title": "",
"text": "The penny pilot program has a dramatic effect on increasing options liquidity. Bids can be posted at .01 penny increments instead of .05 increments. A lot of money is lost dealing with .05 increments. Issues are added to the penny pilot program based on existing liquidity in both the stock and the options market, but the utility of the penny pilot program outweighs the discretionary liquidity judgement that the CBOE makes to list issues in that program. The reason the CBOE doesn't list all stocks in the penny pilot program is because they believe that their data vendors cannot handle all of the market data. But they have been saying this since 2006 and storage and bandwidth technology has greatly improved since then."
},
{
"docid": "66716",
"title": "",
"text": "\"n1. go to tradeworx.com and you can read some papers. 2. Revenues of hft have gone down substantially. About 15 years ago the total market was around 7 billion, it has dropped to 1 billion this year. 3. \"\"no goods or valuable services are produced.- That is false. hft provides liquidity and low spreads. There is a reason why you can buy or sell a share of a stock and the spread is 1 penny. One of the main reasons to go public is to have the secondary market liquid. There is a reason you can instantly sell or buy a stock... Do you realize you used to have to actually call your broker and he had to negotiate an order on the floor? hft makes the markets more efficient. The average person can sign up an online acct and trade/invest for basically nothing. Why do you think that is? finally who are you to say how I can or can not allocate my money. If I develop my own strategy that trades every second why can't I?\""
},
{
"docid": "293320",
"title": "",
"text": "The short term bond fund, which you are pretty certain to have as an option, functions in this capacity. Its return will be low, but positive, in all but the most dramatic of rising rate scenarios. I recall a year in the 90's when rates rose enough that the bond fund return was zero or very slightly negative. It's not likely that you'd have access to simple money market or cash option."
},
{
"docid": "44530",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early."
},
{
"docid": "87548",
"title": "",
"text": "> It seems like another way to have more artificial leverage in the future market, without having to borrow any money. Leverage is plentiful in the futures markets, and without borrowing. > Why aren't future options talked about more? Because they don't as easily connect to predictions that people mean to make. Because they have worse pricing because people are paying more along the way. Because they lack volume. But they're talked about and used plenty. There's not much to them that there isn't to equity options at a low level. > It seems like a safer way to play commodities compared to just futures. You mean hedging your futures contracts? Yes, the people who want to do that buy options."
},
{
"docid": "399584",
"title": "",
"text": "In france you have several options: A good place to starts with: 1% as of may 2015 interest is low, but's money is 100% liquid (you can withdraw antime). You got slightly superior interest rates, and have to wire at least 45€ a month on it. It gives you lots of advantages if you use it to buy a house. You cannot use the money unless you close the account, so it's not as flexible. You get 2% rates as of may 2015 which is quite good. [If you open this account now, it's only 1% making it not so attractive. Look at Life Insurance Instead.] This one is useless: interest rate is too low. I highly recommend this one. You can open it with 0 cost with several online banks (ing, boursorama, ...) Minimum deposit should be around 1000€. Rate is flexible, but usually higher than what you get with the others. You shouldn't withdraw the money before 8 years (because of taxes, but you can still do it if you need). You can add money on it later if you want. Because of the 8 year duration, it's better to open one as soon as you can, even with the minimum amount. Open an PEL + Livret A + Life insurance. Put the minimum on both PEL + life insurance. Put every thing else on Livret A. If you are 100% sure you don't need some of the livret A money, send it to PEL. [As of 2017, PEL is not so attractive anymore. Bet on the Life Insurance instead, unless your account was open prior to this]."
},
{
"docid": "278777",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you're describing makes sense. I'd probably call the non-liquid portion something besides my \"\"emergency fund\"\", but that's semantics mostly. If you have 3 months of \"\"very liquid\"\" cash in this emergency fund and you're comfortable that this amount is good for your situation, then I don't see why you can't have additional savings in more or less liquid vehicles. Whatever you set up, you'll want to think about how to tap it when you need it. You might have a CD ladder with one maturing every three months. That would give you access to these funds after your liquid funds dry up. (Or for a small/short term emergency, you'll be able to replenish the liquid fund with the next-maturing CD.) Or set up a T Bill ladder with the same structure. This might provide you with a tax advantage.\""
},
{
"docid": "291327",
"title": "",
"text": "Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets."
},
{
"docid": "446727",
"title": "",
"text": "This decision depends upon a few things. I will list a couple:- 1.) What is your perception about financial markets in your time span of investments? 2.) What kind of returns are you expecting? 3.) How much liquidity do you have to take care of your daily/monthly expenses? 1.)If your perception about financial markets is weak for the near future, do not invest all your money in a mutual fund at 1 time. Because, if the market falls drastically, chances are that your fund will also lose a lot of money and the NAV will go down. On the other hand, if you think it is strong, go ahead and invest all at one time. 2.) If you are expecting very high returns in a short time frame, then SIP might not be a very good option as you are only investing a portion of your money. So, if the market goes higher, then you will make money only on what you have invested till date and also buy into the fund in the upcoming month at a higher rate( So you will get less units). 3.) If you put all your money into a mutual fund, will you have enough money to take care of your daily needs and emergencies? The worst thing about an investment is putting in all what you have and then being forced to sell in a bear market at a lower rate because you really require the money. Other option is taking a personal loan(15-16%) and taking care of your daily needs, but that would not make sense either as the average return that you can expect from a mutual fund in India is 12-13%. To summarize:- 1.) If you have money to spare and think the market is going to go higher, a mutual fund is a better option. 2.) If you have the money to spare and think that the market is going to fall, DON'T DO ANYTHING!.(It is always better to be even than lose). 3.) If you don't have the money and don't know about markets, but want to be part of it, then you can invest in an SIP because the advantages of this are if the market goes high, you make money on what you've put it, and if the market falls, you get to buy more units of the fund for a cheaper price. Eventually, you can expect to make a return of 14-15% on these, but again, INVESTMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO MARKET RISK! Please watch the funds average return over the last 10 years and their portfolio holdings. All the best!:) PS:- I am assuming you are talking about equity funds."
},
{
"docid": "258986",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're talking about just Theta, the amount of decay due to the passage of time (all else being equal), then theoretically, the time value is a continuous function, so it would decay throughout the day (although by the day of expiry the time value is very, very small). Which makes sense, since even with 15 minutes to go, there's still a 50/50 shot of an ATM option expiring in-the-money, so there should be some time value associated with that one-sided probability. The further away from ATM the option is, the smaller the time value will be, and will be virtually zero for options that are deep in- or out-of-the-money. If you're talking about total time value, then yes it will definitely change during the day, since the underlying components (volatility, underlying price, etc.) change more or less continuously."
},
{
"docid": "132288",
"title": "",
"text": "I do this often and have never had a problem. My broker is TD Ameritrade and they sent several emails (and even called and left a message) the week of expiry to remind me I had in the money options that would be expiring soon. Their policy is to automatically exercise all options that are at least $.01 in the money. One email was vaguely worded, but it implied that they could liquidate other positions to raise money to exercise the options. I would have called to clarify but I had no intention of exercising and knew I would sell them before expiry. In general though, much like with margin calls, you should avoid being in the position where the broker needs to (or can do) anything with your account. As a quick aside: I can't think of a scenario where you wouldn't be able to sell your options, but you probably are aware of the huge spreads that exist for many illiquid options. You'll be able to sell them, but if you're desperate, you may have to sell at the bid price, which can be significantly (25%?) lower than the ask. I've found this to be common for options of even very liquid underlyings. So personally, I find myself adjusting my limit price quite often near expiry. If the quote is, say, 3.00-3.60, I'll try to sell with a limit of 3.40, and hope someone takes my offer. If the price is not moving up and nobody is biting, move down to 3.30, 3.20, etc. In general you should definitely talk to your broker, like others have suggested. You may be able to request that they sell the options and not attempt to exercise them at the expense of other positions you have."
},
{
"docid": "16292",
"title": "",
"text": "I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options. LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'. Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options. The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price. For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation. The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money. For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673 so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close. Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value. As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes. Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day. The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy. If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere. For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks. If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move. For example look at the Jan 17 175 put. The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask. The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy."
},
{
"docid": "357583",
"title": "",
"text": "Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable."
}
] |
6468 | Why deep in the money options have very low liquidity | [
{
"docid": "332069",
"title": "",
"text": "One reason might be the 100% margin requirement on long options. Suppose I want to go long AAPL. I could get a deep ITM call or buy shares. $12,700 for 100 shares, with it's 25% margin requirement is like around $3200 locked up cash. Combine with a deep OTM Jan 2017 $70 strike put for $188, would give a $3400 margin requirement to enter the trade. or I could be in the JAN 2017 $70 strike for nearer $5800, but with a 100% margin requirement due to being a long call. So (3400/5800) = 59% increase in margin requirement for Deep ITM calls. Plus long term the shares will pay dividends, while a LEAP CALL does not."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "582507",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What you are saying is a very valid concern. After the flash crash many institutions in the US replaced \"\"true market orders\"\" (where tag 40=1 and has no price) with deep in the money limit orders under the hood, after the CFTC-SEC joint advisory commission raised concerns about the use of market orders in the case of large HFT traders, and concerns on the lack of liquidity that caused market orders that found no limit orders to execute on the other side of the trade, driving the prices of blue chip stocks into the pennies. We also applaud the CFTC requesting comment regarding whether it is appropriate to restrict large order execution design that results in disruptive trading. In particular, we believe there are questions whether it is ever appropriate to permit large order algorithms that employ unlimited use of market orders or that permit executions at prices which are a dramatic percentage below the present market price without a pause for human review So although you still see a market order on the front end, it is transformed to a very aggressive limit in the back end. However, doing this change manually, by selling at price 0 or buying at 9999 may backfire since it may trigger fat finger checks and prevent your order from reaching the market. For example BATS Exchange rejects orders that are priced too aggressively and don't comply with the range of valid prices. If you want your trade to execute right now and you are willing to take slippage in order to get fast execution, sending a market order is still the best alternative.\""
},
{
"docid": "415705",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\""
},
{
"docid": "277311",
"title": "",
"text": "Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery."
},
{
"docid": "66716",
"title": "",
"text": "\"n1. go to tradeworx.com and you can read some papers. 2. Revenues of hft have gone down substantially. About 15 years ago the total market was around 7 billion, it has dropped to 1 billion this year. 3. \"\"no goods or valuable services are produced.- That is false. hft provides liquidity and low spreads. There is a reason why you can buy or sell a share of a stock and the spread is 1 penny. One of the main reasons to go public is to have the secondary market liquid. There is a reason you can instantly sell or buy a stock... Do you realize you used to have to actually call your broker and he had to negotiate an order on the floor? hft makes the markets more efficient. The average person can sign up an online acct and trade/invest for basically nothing. Why do you think that is? finally who are you to say how I can or can not allocate my money. If I develop my own strategy that trades every second why can't I?\""
},
{
"docid": "555794",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be \"\"Penny wise and Pound foolish\"\". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds. That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%... I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings\""
},
{
"docid": "277074",
"title": "",
"text": "It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy."
},
{
"docid": "242663",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Some thoughts on your questions in order, Duration: You might want to look at the longest-dated option (often a \"\"LEAP\"\"), for a couple reasons. One is that transaction costs (spread plus commission, especially spread) are killer on options, so a longer option means fewer transactions, since you don't have to keep rolling the option. Two is that any fundamentals-based views on stocks might tend to require 3-5 years to (relatively) reliably work out, so if you're a fundamental investor, a 3-6 month option isn't great. Over 3-6 months, momentum, short-term news, short squeezes, etc. can often dominate fundamentals in determining the price. One exception is if you just want to hedge a short-term event, such as a pending announcement on drug approval or something, and then you would buy the shortest option that still expires after the event; but options are usually super-expensive when they span an event like this. Strike: Strike price on a long option can be thought of as a tradeoff between the max loss and minimizing \"\"insurance costs.\"\" That is, if you buy a deeply in-the-money put or call, the time value will be minimal and thus you aren't paying so much for \"\"insurance,\"\" but you may have 1/3 or 1/2 of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss. If you buy a put or call \"\"at the money,\"\" then you might have only say 10% of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss, but almost the whole 10% may be time value (insurance cost), so you are losing 10% if the underlying stock price stays flat. I think of the deep in-the-money options as similar to buying stocks on margin (but the \"\"implied\"\" interest costs may be less than consumer margin borrowing rates, and for long options you can't get a margin call). The at-the-money options are more like buying insurance, and it's expensive. The commissions and spreads add significant cost, on top of the natural time value cost of the option. The annual costs would generally exceed the long-run average return on a diversified stock fund, which is daunting. Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 1: First thing is to be sure the options prices on a given underlying make sense at all; there are things that \"\"should\"\" hold, for example a synthetic long or short should match up to an actual long or short. These kinds of rules can break, for example on LinkedIn (LNKD) after its IPO, when shorting was not permitted, the synthetic long was quite a bit cheaper than a real long. Usually though this happens because the arbitrage is not practical. For example on LNKD, the shares to short weren't really available, so people doing synthetic shorts with options were driving up the price of the synthetic short and down the price of the synthetic long. If you did actually want to be long the stock, then the synthetic long was a great deal. However, a riskless arbitrage (buy synthetic long, short the stock) was not possible, and that's why the prices were messed up. Another basic relationship that should hold is put-call parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 2: Assuming the relationship to the underlying is sane (synthetic positions equivalent to actual positions) then the valuation of the option could focus on volatility. That is, the time value of the option implies the stock will move a certain amount. If the time value is high and you think the stock won't move much, you might short the option, while if the time value is low and you think the stock will move a lot, you might buy the option. You can get implied volatility from your broker perhaps, or Morningstar.com for example has a bunch of data on option prices and the implied components of the price model. I don't know how useful this really is though. The spreads on options are so wide that making money on predicting volatility better than the market is pretty darn hard. That is, the spread probably exceeds the amount of the mispricing. The price of the underlying is more important to the value of an option than the assumed volatility. How many contracts: Each contract is 100 shares, so you just match that up. If you want to hedge 100 shares, buy one contract. To get the notional value of the underlying multiply by 100. So say you buy a call for $30, and the stock is trading at $100, then you have a call on 100 shares which are currently priced at $10,000 and the option will cost $30*100=3,000. You are leveraged about 3 to 1. (This points to an issue with options for individual investors, which is that one contract is a pretty large notional value relative to most portfolios.)\""
},
{
"docid": "339419",
"title": "",
"text": "Sounds like an illiquid option, if there are actually some bidders, market makers, then sell the option at market price (market sell order). If there are not market makers then place a really low limit sell order so that you can sit at the ask in the order book. A lot of time there is off-book liquidity, so there may be a party looking for buy liquidity. You can also exercise the option to book the loss (immediately selling the shares when they get delivered to you), if this is an American style option. But if the option is worthless then it is probably significantly underwater, and you'd end up losing a lot more as you'd buy the stock at the strike price but only be able to sell at its current market value. The loss could also be increased further if there are even MORE liquidity issues in the stock."
},
{
"docid": "372105",
"title": "",
"text": "I understand that ITM have little time value, so they will have small time decay(theta), but why OTM has a lesser theta than ATM? The Time value represents uncertainty. That uncertainty decreases the farther away from ATM you get (in either direction). At-the-money, there is roughly a 50% chance that the option expires worthless. As you get deeper in-the-money, the change that is expires worthless decreases, so there is less uncertainty (there is more certainty that the option will pay off). As you go deeper OTM, the probability that the option expires worthless increases, so there is also less uncertainty. At the TTM decreases, the uncertainty (theta) decreases as well, since there is less time for the option to cross the strike from either direction. Similarly, as volatility decreases, theta decreases, since low-volatility stocks have a less change of crossing the strike."
},
{
"docid": "139089",
"title": "",
"text": "The penny pilot program has a dramatic effect on increasing options liquidity. Bids can be posted at .01 penny increments instead of .05 increments. A lot of money is lost dealing with .05 increments. Issues are added to the penny pilot program based on existing liquidity in both the stock and the options market, but the utility of the penny pilot program outweighs the discretionary liquidity judgement that the CBOE makes to list issues in that program. The reason the CBOE doesn't list all stocks in the penny pilot program is because they believe that their data vendors cannot handle all of the market data. But they have been saying this since 2006 and storage and bandwidth technology has greatly improved since then."
},
{
"docid": "398520",
"title": "",
"text": "Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one."
},
{
"docid": "271741",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying \"\"liquidity begets liquidity\"\", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly\""
},
{
"docid": "268966",
"title": "",
"text": "Prop (proprietary) traders trade using huge amounts of a bank's money (i.e. other people's money) so the reason why they have such low commissions (and they certainly do) is that the firms for which they work negotiate low commissions as the quantities and volumes (as they also trade very frequently) will be high and so the total commission will be very high. There is no such thing as a prop trading account unless you are a big bank with a very large bank roll (tens of millions of USD) so you cannot open one to enjoy those benefits unless you have enough money that you can negotiate your commission with brokers. 25k CAD is definitely not enough money to even start a conversation about those sorts of commissions. note: prop traders are generally banned from trading intraday with their own money by their employers and the law as it is a massive conflict of interests. Those who do and get caught face lengthy prison sentences."
},
{
"docid": "433260",
"title": "",
"text": "\"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.\""
},
{
"docid": "258986",
"title": "",
"text": "If you're talking about just Theta, the amount of decay due to the passage of time (all else being equal), then theoretically, the time value is a continuous function, so it would decay throughout the day (although by the day of expiry the time value is very, very small). Which makes sense, since even with 15 minutes to go, there's still a 50/50 shot of an ATM option expiring in-the-money, so there should be some time value associated with that one-sided probability. The further away from ATM the option is, the smaller the time value will be, and will be virtually zero for options that are deep in- or out-of-the-money. If you're talking about total time value, then yes it will definitely change during the day, since the underlying components (volatility, underlying price, etc.) change more or less continuously."
},
{
"docid": "229626",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As already noted, options contain inherent leverage (a multiplier on the profit or loss). The amount of \"\"leverage\"\" is dictated primarily by both the options strike relative to the current share price and the time remaining to expiration. Options are a far more difficult investment than stocks because they require that you are right on both the direction and the timing of the future price movement. With a stock, you could choose to buy and hold forever (Buffett style), and even if you are wrong for 5 years, your unrealized losses can suddenly become realized profits if the shares finally start to rise 6 years later. But with options, the profits and losses become very final very quickly. As a professional options trader, the single best piece of advice I can give to investors dabbling in options for the first time is to only purchase significantly ITM (in-the-money) options, for both calls and puts. Do a web search on \"\"in-the-money options\"\" to see what calls or puts qualify. With ITM options, the leverage is still noticeably better than buying/selling the shares outright, but you have a much less chance of losing all your premium. Also, by being fairly deep in-the-money, you reduce the constant bleed in value as you wait for the expected move to happen (the market moves sideways more than people usually expect). Fairly- to deeply-ITM options are the ones that options market-makers like least to trade in, because they offer neither large nor \"\"easy\"\" premiums. And options market-makers make their living by selling options to retail investors and other people that want them like you, so connect the dots. By trading only ITM options until you become quite experienced, you are minimizing your chances of being the average sucker (all else equal). Some amateur options investors believe that similar benefits could be obtained by purchasing long-expiration options (like LEAPS for 1+ years) that are not ITM (like ATM or OTM options). The problem here is that your significant time value is bleeding away slowly every day you wait. With an ITM option, your intrinsic value is not bleeding out at all. Only the relatively smaller time value of the option is at risk. Thus my recommendation to initially deal only in fairly- to deeply-ITM options with expirations of 1-4 months out, depending on how daring you wish to be with your move timing.\""
},
{
"docid": "176161",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To understand the VXX ETF, you need to understand VIX futures, to understand VIX futures you need to understand VIX, to understand VIX you need to understand options pricing formulas such as the \"\"Black Scholes\"\" formula Those are your prerequisites. Learn at your own pace. Short Answer: When you buy VXX you are buying the underlying are front month VIX futures. Limited by the supply of the ETF's NAV (Net Asset Value) units. It is assumed that the ETF manager is actually buying and selling more VIX front month futures to back the underlying ETF. Long Answer: Assume nobody knows what an options contract should be worth. Therefore formulas have been devised to standardize how to price an options contract. The Black-Scholes formula is widely used, one of the variables in this formula is \"\"Implied Volatility\"\", which basically accounts for the mispricing of options when the other variables (Intrinsic Value, delta, gamma, theta...) don't completely explain how much the option is worth. People are willing to pay more for options when the perception is that they will be more profitable, \"\"implied volatility\"\" tracks these changes in an option's demand, where the rest of the black-scholes formula creates a price for an option that will always be the same. Each stock in the market that also trades standardized options will have implied volatility which can be computed from the price of those options. The \"\"Volatility Index\"\" (VIX), looks at the implied volatility of MANY STOCK's options contracts. Specifically the \"\"implied volatility of out the money puts on the S&P 500\"\". If you don't know what that quoted part of the sentence means, then you have at least five other individual questions to ask before you re-read this answer and understand the relevance of these followup questions: Why would people buy out-the-money puts on the S&P 500? Why would people pay more for out-the-money puts on the S&P 500 on some days and pay less for them on other days? This is really the key to the whole puzzle. Anyway, now that we have this data, people wanted to speculate on the future value of the VIX. So VIX futures contracts began trading and with it there came a liquid market. There doesn't need to be anything physical to back a financial product anymore. A lot of people don't trade futures, retail investors have practically only heard of \"\"the stock market\"\". So one investment bank decided to make a fund that only holds VIX futures that expire within a month. (front month futures). They split that fund up into shares and listed it on the stock market, like alchemy the VXX was formed. Volatility studies are fascinating, and get way more complex than this now that the VXX ETF also has liquid options contracts trading on it too, and there are leveraged VIX ETF funds that also trade options\""
},
{
"docid": "138703",
"title": "",
"text": "This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality."
},
{
"docid": "425723",
"title": "",
"text": "The liquidity of options is really not a problem, as the option price is determined by the underlying price, and even if there was very little liquidity in the option itself, market makers are required to make a market at the price determined by the underlying. As long as the underlying has enough liquidity your slippage in trading the options should not be too much of a problem. You can read this ETO Market Making Scheme document for more details."
}
] |
6479 | Trading on exchanges or via brokerage companies? | [
{
"docid": "272008",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes when I place an order with my broker they send it out to the exchange. - For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? I may be mistaken(I highly doubt it), but from my understanding you cannot trade directly through an exchange as a retail investor. BATS allows membership but it is only for Your firm must be a registered broker-dealer, registered with a Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) and connected with a clearing firm. No apple (aapl) is listed on the NASDAQ so trades go through the NASDAQ for aapl. Caterpillar Inc (CAT) is listed on the NYSE so trades go through the NYSE. The exchange you trade on is dependent on the security, if it is listed on the NYSE then you trade on the NYSE. As a regular investor you will be going through a broker. When looking to purchase a security it is more important to know about the company and less important to know what exchange it is listed on. Since there are rules a company must comply with for it to be listed on certain exchanges, it does make a difference but that is more the case when speaking about a stock listed Over the Counter(OTC) or NYSE. It is not important when asking NYSE or NASDAQ? Selecting a broker is something that's dependent on your needs. You should ask your self, \"\"whats important to me?\"\", \"\"Do I want apps(IE: iPhone, android)?\"\" \"\"Do I need fancy trading tools?\"\". Generally all the brokers you listed will most likely do the trick for you. Some review sites: Brokerage Review Online Broker Review 2012 Barron's 2012 Online Broker Review\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "560558",
"title": "",
"text": "As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price."
},
{
"docid": "294424",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Regarding \"\"Interest on idle cash\"\", brokerage firms must maintain a segregated account on the brokerage firm's books to make sure that the client's money and the firm's money is not intermingled, and clients funds are not used for operational purposes. Source. Thus, brokerage firms do not earn interest on cash that is held unused in client accounts. Regarding \"\"Exchanges pay firm for liquidity\"\", I am not aware of any circumstances under which an exchange will pay a brokerage any such fee. In fact, the opposite is the case. Exchanges charge participants to transact business. See : How the NYSE makes money Similarly, market makers do not pay a broker to transact business on their behalf. They charge the broker a commission just like the broker charges their client a commission. Of course, a large broker may also be acting as market maker or deal directly with the exchange, in which case no such commission will be incurred by the broker. In any case, the broker will pay a commission to the clearing house.\""
},
{
"docid": "568043",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\""
},
{
"docid": "458635",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\""
},
{
"docid": "457461",
"title": "",
"text": "What typically happens to brokerage accounts during similar situations? This depends on country, time and situation. Nothing is predictable in such situations. In Greece during the said period the stock exchanges were closed for 5 weeks. There was no trading. Edits: Every situation is different and it would be unfair to compare one against another or use it to predict something else. Right now in India due to demonitization, cash withdrawal is limited. One can trade in stocks, unlimited bank transfers, transfer money out of India ...etc. Everything same except for cash withdrawal. In 1990, the ASEAN countries survived a financial collapse, everything was allowed except moving money out of country."
},
{
"docid": "275199",
"title": "",
"text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can."
},
{
"docid": "138383",
"title": "",
"text": "Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general."
},
{
"docid": "18855",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Without knowing what you are trying to achieve - make a bit of pocket money, become financially independent, invest for retirement, learn trading to become a trader - I'll give you a few thoughts ... The difficulty you will have trading with $400-600 is that brokerage will be a high proportion of your \"\"profits\"\". I'm not sure of the US (assuming US rather than AU, NZ, etc) rates for online brokers, but UK online brokers are the order of £6-10 / trade. Having a quick read suggests that the trading is similar $6-10/trade. With doing day trades you will be killed by the brokerage. I'm not sure what percent of profitable trades you have, but if it is 50% (e.g.), you will need to make twice the brokerage fees value on each profitable trade before you are actually making a profit. There can be an emotional effect that trips you up. You will find that trading with your own real money is very different to trading with fake money. Read up about it, this brief blog shows some personal thoughts from someone I read from time to time. With a $10 brokerage, I would suggest the following Another option, which I wouldn't recommend is to leverage your money, by trading CDFs or other derivatives that allow you to trade on a margin. Further to that, learn about trading/investing Plus other investment types I have written about earlier.\""
},
{
"docid": "53993",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company. A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy. One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company. For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see \"\"Type: Public\"\", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol \"\"AAPL\"\". Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see \"\"Type: Private\"\", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock. You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded.\""
},
{
"docid": "435963",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions."
},
{
"docid": "404852",
"title": "",
"text": "Source Rule 41 of the AIM Rules sets out the procedure for delisting. In summary, a company that wishes to cancel the right of any of its trading securities must: The notification to the Exchange should be made by the company’s nominated adviser and should be given at least 20 business days prior to the intended cancellation date (the 20 business days’ notice requirement is a minimum). Any cancellation of a company’s securities on AIM will be conditional upon seeking shareholder approval in general meeting of not less than 75% of votes cast by its shareholders present and voting (in person or by proxy) at the meeting. The notification to shareholders should set out the preferred date of cancellation, the reasons for seeking the cancellation (for example annual fees to the Exchange, the cost of maintaining a nominated adviser and broker, professional costs, corporate governance compliance, inability to access funds on the market), a description of how shareholders will be able to effect transactions in the AIM securities once they have been cancelled and any other matters relevant to shareholders reaching an informed decision upon the issue of the cancellation. Cancellation will not take effect until at least 5 business days after the shareholder approval is obtained and a dealing notice has been issued by the Exchange. It should be noted that there are circumstances where the Exchange may agree that shareholder consent is not required for the cancellation of admission of a company’s shares, for example (i) where comparable dealing facilities on an EU regulated market or AIM designated market are put in place to enable shareholders to trade their AIM securities in the future or (ii) where, pursuant to a takeover which has become wholly unconditional, an offeror has received valid acceptances in excess of 75% of each class of AIM securities. The company’s Nominated Adviser will liaise with the Exchange to secure a dispensation if relevant. So you should receive information from the company regarding the due process informing you about your options."
},
{
"docid": "48718",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You can hold a wide variety of investments in your TFSA account, including stocks such as SLF. But if the stocks are being purchased via a company stock purchase plan, they are typically deposited in a regular margin account with a brokerage firm (a few companies may issue physical stock certificates but that is very rare these days). That account would not be a TFSA but you can perform what's called an \"\"in-kind\"\" transfer to move them into a TFSA that you open with either the same brokerage firm, or a different one. There will be a fee for the transfer - check with the brokerage that currently holds the stock to find out how costly that will be. Assuming the stock gained in value while you held it outside the TFSA, this transfer will result in capital gains tax that you'll have to pay when you file your taxes for the year in which the transfer occurs. The tax would be calculated by taking the value at time of transfer, minus the purchase price (or the market value at time of purchase, if your plan allowed you to buy it at a discounted price; the discounted amount will be automatically taxed by your employer). 50% of the capital gain is added to your annual income when calculating taxes owed. Normally when you sell a stock that has lost value, you can actually get a \"\"capital loss\"\" deduction that is used to offset gains that you made in other stocks, or redeemed against capital gains tax paid in previous years, or carried forward to apply against gains in future years. However, if the stock decreased in value and you transfer it, you are not eligible to claim a capital loss. I'm not sure why you said \"\"TFSA for a family member\"\", as you cannot directly contribute to someone else's TFSA account. You can give them a gift of money or stocks, which they can deposit in their TFSA account, but that involves that extra step of gifting, and the money/stocks become their property to do with as they please. Now that I've (hopefully) answered all your questions, let me offer you some advice, as someone who also participates in an employee stock purchase plan. Holding stock in the company that you work for is a bad idea. The reason is simple: if something terrible happens to the company, their stock will plummet and at the same time they may be forced to lay off many employees. So just at the time when you lose your job and might want to sell your stock, suddenly the value of your stocks has gone way down! So you really should sell your company shares at least once a year, and then use that money to invest in your TFSA account. You also don't want to put all your eggs in one basket - you should be spreading your investment among many companies, or better yet, buy index mutual funds or ETFs which hold all the companies in a certain index. There's lots of good info about index investing available at Canadian Couch Potato. The types of investments recommended there are all possible to purchase inside a TFSA account, to shelter the growth from being taxed. EDIT: Here is an article from MoneySense that talks about transferring stocks into a TFSA. It also mentions the importance of having a diversified portfolio!\""
},
{
"docid": "172913",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general."
},
{
"docid": "418029",
"title": "",
"text": "\"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.\""
},
{
"docid": "213507",
"title": "",
"text": "You can find the NYSE holiday dates listed on the exchange's own site (already linked in answer above), which should obviously be consulted as the most reliable source; they are also published in an article that I have written here: NYSE Holidays 2016, which provides additional information about traditions and events that can be expected to lead to unscheduled closures, and closed dates for holidays that are day-of-month rather than date specific (e.g. President's Day and Memorial Day). NYSE Holidays are not quite identical to those for the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, though most US stock exchange dates are the same. Also, note that both the Merc (via the Globex platform) and NYSE Arca have different normal cash sessions and trading hours to the New York Stock Exchange."
},
{
"docid": "69197",
"title": "",
"text": "Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit."
},
{
"docid": "439545",
"title": "",
"text": "For eToro, just like any other brokerage firm, you can lose your entire capital. I suggest that you invest in one or more exchange-traded funds that track major indexes. If not, just put your money in fixed deposit accounts; gain a bit of interest and establish an emergency fund first before investing money that you feel you are able to lose."
},
{
"docid": "550992",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can address what it means to \"\"pick off\"\" all those trades... As quantycuenta & littleadv have said, it is absolutely true that professionals \"\"prey\"\" on less-sophisticated market participants. They aren't in the market for charity's sake. If you're not familiar with the definition of the word \"\"arbitrage\"\", look it up. One possible strategy that can be employed with HFT machinery in order to arbitrage successfully in the stock market is to 'intercept' orders that are placed on various exchanges. In order to do this, an HFT organization watches all the transactions at once to find opportunities to buy low and sell high. A good explanation of it is described here in this NY Times article; I'll paraphrase what that article lays out. Stocks are traded through multiple exchanges The first key point to understand is that stocks listed on one exchange (i.e. the NYSE) can be sold on multiple exchanges. That's where the actual \"\"I would like to sell 100 shares of Ford stock\"\" is matched with \"\"I would like to buy 100 shares of Ford stock.\"\" There are multiple clearinghouses on the various exchanges. Your order gets presented to one exchange at a Time An ideal market maker would like to look at the order books for a given stock, say Ford, and see that in exchange A there's a sell order for 100 shares of F at $15.85, and in exchange B there's a buy order for 100 shares of F at $15.90. Arbitrage Market maker buys from A, sells in B, and pockets $0.05 * 100... $5. It's not much, but it was relatively risk free. Also, scale this up to the scale of the US' multiple stock exchanges, and there are lots of opportunities to make $5 every second. Computers are (of course) faster than people To tie it in completely with your question about 'picking off trades', HFT rigs can be set up and programmed to go faster than an average retail investor's order. Let's say you execute the trade to buy 100 shares @ $15.85 as a retail investor. The HFT rigs see your order starting to make the rounds of the different exchanges that your brokerage works through, and go out in front in a matter of milliseconds, finding the orders that are less than $15.85 and less than or equal to 100 shares. They execute a transaction, buy them up, sell to you, and pocket the difference. You have been \"\"picked off\"\". It's admittedly not the only way to use HFT equipment to make money, but it's definitely one way to do it.\""
},
{
"docid": "498356",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, your question contains a couple of false premises: Options in the U.S. do not trade on the NYSE, which is a stock exchange. You must have been looking at a listing from an options exchange. There are a handful of options exchanges in the U.S., and while two of these have \"\"NYSE\"\" in the name, referring to \"\"NYSE\"\" by itself still refers to the stock exchange. Companies typically don't decide themselves whether options will trade for their stock. The exchange and other market participants (market makers) decide whether to create a market for them. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) is also a stock exchange. It doesn't list any options. If you want to see Canadian-listed options on equities, you're looking in the wrong place. Next, yes, RY does have listed options in Canada. Here are some. Did you know about the Montreal Exchange (MX)? The MX is part of the TMX Group, which owns both the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the Montreal Exchange. You'll find lots of Canadian equity and index options trading at the MX. If you have an options trading account with a decent Canadian broker, you should have access to trade options at the MX. Finally, even considering the existence of the MX, you'll still find that a lot of Canadian companies don't have any options listed. Simply: smaller and/or less liquid stocks don't have enough demand for options, so the options exchange & market makers don't offer any. It isn't cost-effective for them to create a market where there will be very few participants.\""
}
] |
6479 | Trading on exchanges or via brokerage companies? | [
{
"docid": "404339",
"title": "",
"text": "I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "165973",
"title": "",
"text": "It depends on what site you're looking on and what exchange they're pulling the data from. Even though funds and stocks are called the same thing, they have different ticker symbols in each country's exchange or could be traded as pink sheet stocks in the US. If a company or fund is based in another country (like Canada or the UK) they probably also trade on that country's exchange (Toronto or London) under a different symbol. This can cause a lot of confusion when researching these tickers."
},
{
"docid": "451884",
"title": "",
"text": "\"AFAIK, It's also possible that the ETF company is paying Ameritrade for every trade you make. Even if your brokerage doesn't make you pay a fee to trade ETFs, the company that created and runs the ETF is still making money when you purchase and use their ETFs. See \"\"What motivates each player?\"\" at Yahoo Finance.\""
},
{
"docid": "188364",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with \"\"promotions\"\" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so.\""
},
{
"docid": "206342",
"title": "",
"text": "While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process."
},
{
"docid": "366484",
"title": "",
"text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them."
},
{
"docid": "586851",
"title": "",
"text": "@JoeTaxpayer gave a great response to your first question. Here are some thoughts on the other two... 2) Transaction fees for mutual funds are tied to the class of shares you're buying and will be the same no matter where you buy them. A-shares have a front-end 'load' (the fee charged), and the lowest expenses, and can be liquidated without any fees. B-shares have no up-front load, but come with a 4-7 year period where they will charge you a fee to liquidate (technically called Contingent Deferred Sales Charge, CDSC), and slightly higher management fees, after which they often will convert to A-shares. C-shares have the highest management fees, and usually a 12- to 18-month period where they will charge a small percentage fee if you liquidate. There are lots of other share classes available, but they are tied to special accounts such as managed accounts and 401-K plans. Not all companies offer all share classes. C-shares are intended for shorter timeframes, eg 2-5 years. A and B shares work best for longer times. Use a B share if you're sure you won't need to take the money out until after the fee period ends. Most fund companies will allow you to exchange funds within the same fund family without charging the CDSC. EDIT: No-load funds don't charge a fee in or out (usually). They are a great option if they are available to you. Most self-service brokerages offer them. Few full-service brokerages offer them. The advantage of a brokerage versus personal accounts at each fund is the brokerage gives you a single view of things and a single statement, and buying and selling is easy and convenient. 3) High turnover rates in bond funds... depending on how actively the portfolio is managed, the fund company may deliver returns as a mix of both interest and capital gains, and the management expenses may be high with a lot of churn in the underlying portfolio. Bond values fall as interest rates rise, so (at least in the USA) be prepared to see the share values of the fund fall in the next few years. The biggest risk of a bond fund is that there is no maturity date, so there is no point in time that you have an assurance that your original investment will be returned to you."
},
{
"docid": "40793",
"title": "",
"text": "Why do you care? In any case, you can easily Google the answer... Effective Sunday, April 2, 2017 for trade date Monday, April 3, 2017, and pending all relevant CFTC regulatory review periods, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “Exchange”) will list Monday Weekly Options on the E-mini Standard and Poor’s Stock Price Index Futures and Standard and Poor’s 500 Stock Price Index Futures contracts (collectively the “Contracts”) for trading on CME Globex and for submission for clearing via CME ClearPort as described in Appendix A below. Appendix B below provides the Exchange fee schedule for the Contracts. source"
},
{
"docid": "69197",
"title": "",
"text": "Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit."
},
{
"docid": "435963",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions."
},
{
"docid": "58026",
"title": "",
"text": "Agree with Michael here. The exchanges help you more than they will hurt. It begs the question why you want to avoid exchanges and the brokers since they do provide a valuable service. If you want to avoid big fees, most of the discount brokerages have tiny fees these days (optionshouse is down to $4), plus many have deals where you get 60 or more trades for free."
},
{
"docid": "65567",
"title": "",
"text": "If you have just started an IRA (presumably with a contribution for 2012), you likely have $5000 in it, or $10,000 if you made a full contribution for 2013 as well. At this time, I would recommend putting it all in a single low-cost mutual fund. Typically, mutual funds that track an index such as the S&P 500 Index have lower costs (annual expense fees) than actively managed funds, and most investment companies offer such mutual funds, with Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, to name a few, having very low expenses even among index funds. Later, when you have more money in the account, you can consider diversifying into more funds, buying stocks and bonds, investing in ETFs, etc. Incidentally, if you are just starting out and your Roth IRA is essentially your first investment experience, be aware that you do not need a brokerage account for your Roth IRA until you have more money in the account to invest and specifically want to buy individual stocks and bonds instead of just mutual funds. If you opened a brokerage account for your Roth IRA, close it and transfer the Roth IRA to your choice of mutual fund company; else you will be paying annual fees to the brokerage for maintaining your account, inactivity fees since you won't be doing any trading, etc. The easiest way to do this is to go to the mutual fund company web site and tell them that you want to transfer your IRA to them (not roll over your IRA to them) and they will take care of all the paper work and collecting your money from the brokerage (ditto if your Roth IRA is with a bank or another mutual fund company). Then close your brokerage account."
},
{
"docid": "531180",
"title": "",
"text": "You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there."
},
{
"docid": "322168",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \"\"Flash Boys\"\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \"\"innovation\"\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \"\"Too Big To Fail\"\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \"\"reason\"\" for the current state of affairs.\""
},
{
"docid": "1577",
"title": "",
"text": "If I buy VUSA from one exchange, can I sell it in a different exchange, assuming my brokerage account lets me trade in both exchanges? Or is it somehow tied to the exchange I bought it from? This doesn't happen for all securities and between all stock exchanges. So that is dependent on broker and country. I checked for VUSA with Selftrade. They categorically refused allowing me to trade in VUSA in different exchanges. I can only buy and sell in same currency only, albeit sell(buy) in the same exchange where I buy(sell) from. Should be the same behaviour for all brokers for us mere mortals, if you are a bank or a millionaire than that might be a different question. The VUSA you quote is quoted in GBP in LSE and in EUR in AEX, and the ETF has been created by an Irish entity and has an Irish ISIN. As Chris mentioned below, happens between US and Canadian exchanges, but not sure it happens across all exchanges. You cannot deal in inter-listed stocks in LSE and NYSE. Since it's the same asset, its value should not vary across exchanges once you compensate for exchange rates, right? Yes, else it opens up itself for arbitrage (profit without any risk) which everybody wants. So even if any such instance occurs, either people will exploit it to make the arbitrage profit zero (security reflects the equilibrium price) or the profit from such transaction is so less, compared with the effort involved, that people will tend to ignore it. Anyways arbitrage profit is very difficult to garner nowadays, considering the super computers at work in the market who exploit these discrepancies, the moment they see them and bring the security right to the zero arbitrage profit point. If there's no currency risk because of #2, what other factors should I consider when choosing an exchange to trade in? Liquidity? Something else? Time difference, by the time you wake up to trade in Japan, the Japanese markets would have closed. Tax implications across multiple continents. Law of the land, providing protection to investors. Finding a broker dealing in markets you want to explore or dealing with multiple brokers. Regulatory headaches."
},
{
"docid": "359190",
"title": "",
"text": "I would say it's a bit more complicated than that. Do you understand what a market maker does? An ECN (electronic communication network) is a virtual exchange that works with market makers. Using a rebate structure that works by paying for orders adding liquidity and charges a fee for removing liquidity. So liquidity is created by encouraging what are essentially limit orders, orders that are outside of the current market price and therefore not immediately executable. These orders stay in the book and are filled when the price of the security moves and triggers them. So direct answer is NYSE ARCA is where market makers do their jobs. These market makers can be floor traders or algorithmic. When you send an order through your brokerage, your broker has a number of options. Your order can be sent directly to an ECN/exchange like NYSE ARCA, sent to a market making firm like KCG Americas (formerly Knight Capital), or internalized. Internalization is when the broker uses an in house service to execute your trade. Brokerages must disclose what they do with orders. For example etrade's. https://content.etrade.com/etrade/powerpage/pdf/OrderRouting11AC6.pdf This is a good graphic showing what happens in general along with the names of some common liquidity providers. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-20/how-your-buy-order-gets-filled"
},
{
"docid": "458635",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\""
},
{
"docid": "17906",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying \"\"If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time\"\". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar. I find if you keep all your money in U.S. dollars without considering other nations, that's a sort of ignorant way of gambling, you're betting your money will lose value less slowly than if you had it elsewhere or in multiple places. Back on track to your question: [A]m I really buying that currency? You are trading a currency. You are giving one currency and exchanging it for another. I guess you could consider that buying, since you can consider trading currency for a piece of software as buying something. Or is the situation more like playing with the live rates? It depends on your perception of playing with the live rates. Investments to me are long-term commitments with reputable research attached to it that I intend to keep, through highs and lows, unless something triggers me to change my investment elsewhere. If by playing you mean risk, as described above, you will have a level of risk. If by playing you mean not taking it seriously, then do thorough research before investing and don't be trading every few seconds for minor returns, trying to make major returns out of minor returns (my opinion), or doing anything based on a whim. Was that money created out of thin air? I suggest you do more research before starting to trade currency into how markets and trading works. Simplistically, think of a market as a closed system with other markets, such as UK market, French market, etc. Each can interact with each other. The U.S. [or any market] has a set number of dollars in the pool. $100 for example's sake. Each $1 has a certain value associated with it. If for some reason, the country decides to create more paper that is green, says $1, and stamps presidents on them (money), and adds 15 $1 to the pool (making it $115), each one of these dollars' value goes down. This can also happen with goods. This, along with the trading of goods between markets, peoples' attachment of value to goods of the market, and peoples' perception of the market, is what fluctates currency trading, in simple terms. So essentially, no, money is not made out of thin air. Money is a medium for value though values are always changing and money is a static amount. You are attempting to trade values and own the medium that has the most value, if that makes sense. Values of goods are constantly changing. This is a learning process for me as well so I hope this helps answers your questions you seem to have. As stated above, I'm no expert; I'm actually quite new to this, so I probably missed a few things here and there.\""
},
{
"docid": "32671",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The receiving Roth IRA custodian will almost certainly not charge you anything; they are eager to get their hands on the money. In fact, the easiest and most efficient way is to fill out the forms for opening a Roth IRA account with the new custodian (most of this can be done online, but it might be necessary to print out a paper form, sign it and send/fax it to the company), tell them that the Roth IRA will be funded by a trustee-to-trustee transfer from the current custodian, and tell them to go get the money from the online bank who is the current custodian of your Roth IRA account. Don't approach your online bank and tell them to send the money to your new Roth IRA custodian; it will cost money and take more time and the likelihood of a screw-up is way too high. The current custodian might charge you a fee for closing the account, or for \"\"breaking a CD\"\" if that savings account is a CD and you are withdrawing the money before the maturity date of the CD. This will be spelled out in the Roth IRA custodial agreement that you accepted when you opened the account (but most likely did not read in full when you received it, and might even have discarded). One final note: with just $11K, please do not open a brokerage account for your Roth IRA and invest in stocks, bonds etc. For now, invest all your Roth IRA in a single low-cost mutual fund (preferably an index fund such as the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund or Fidelity Spartan 500 fund); you can branch out into more funds when you have more money in your Roth IRA. Investing in these funds does not need you to have a brokerage account; you can do it directly on the fund's website. Avoid (for now) the siren song of Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) because you need to have a brokerage account to buy and sell them. When you have more money in your Roth IRA account, say in ten years' time, you can start investing in individual stocks, ETFs and the like through a brokerage account, but don't do it now.\""
},
{
"docid": "426703",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In addition to @MD-tech's answer: I'd distinguish between stock of a foreign company traded in local currency at a local exchange from the same stock traded in the foreign currency at a foreign exchange (and maybe with a foreign bank holding your accounts). The latter option will typically have higher variation because of exchange rate, and (usually) higher risks associated with possibility of recovery, (double) taxation and the possible legal difficulties @MD-tech mentions. Trading the foreign stock at a local exchange may mean that the transaction volume is far lower than at their \"\"home\"\" exchange. Holding stock of companies working in foreign markets OTOH can be seen as diversification and may lower your risk. If you only invest in the local market, your investments may be subject to the same economic fluctuations that your wage/employment/pension situation is subject to - it may be good to try de-correlating this a bit. Of course, depending on political circumstances in your home country, foreign investments may be less risky (though I'd suspect these home countries also come with a high risk of seizing foreign investments...)\""
}
] |
6525 | Does it make sense to trade my GOOGL shares for GOOG and pocket the difference? | [
{
"docid": "181985",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "377322",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are many different kinds of SEC filings with different purposes. Broadly speaking, what they have in common is that they are the ways that companies publicly disclose information that they are legally required to disclose. The page that you listed gives brief descriptions of many types, but if you click through to the articles on individual types of filings, you can get more info. One of the most commonly discussed filings is the 10-K, which is, as Wikipedia says, \"\"a comprehensive summary of a company's financial performance\"\". This includes info like earnings and executive pay. One example of a form that some people believe has potential utility for investors is Form 4, which is a disclosure of \"\"insider trading\"\". People with a privileged stake in a company (executives, directors, and major shareholders) cannot legally buy or sell shares without disclosing it by filing a Form 4. Some people think that you can make use of this information in the sense that if, for instance, the CEO of Google buys a bunch of Twitter stock, they may have some reason for thinking it will go up, so maybe you should buy it too. Whether such inferences are accurate, and whether you can garner a practical benefit from them (i.e., whether you can manage to buy before everyone else notices and drives the price up) is debatable. My personal opinion would be that, for an average retail investor, readng SEC filings is unlikely to be useful. The reason is that an average retail investor shouldn't be investing in individual companies at all, but rather in mutual funds or ETFs, which typically provide comparable returns with far less risk. SEC filings are made by individual companies, so it doesn't generally help you to read them unless you're going to take action related to an individual company. It doesn't generally make sense to take action related to an individual company if you don't have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings to decide which company to take action on. If you have the time and energy to read a large number of SEC filings, you're probably not an average retail investor. If you are a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues, you might benefit from reading SEC filings. However, if you aren't already reading SEC filings, you're probably not a wheeler dealer who plays in the big leagues. That said, if you're a currently-average investor with big dreams, it could be instructive to read a few filings to explore what you might do with them. You could, for instance, allocate a \"\"play money\"\" fund of a few thousand dollars and try your hand at following insider trades or the like. If you make some money, great; if not, oh well. Realistically, though, there are so many people who make a living reading SEC filings and acting on them every day that you have little chance of finding a \"\"diamond in the rough\"\" unless you also make a living by doing it every day. It's sort of like asking \"\"Should I read Boating Monthly to improve my sailing skills?\"\" If you're asking because you want to rent a Hobie Cat and go for a pleasure cruise now and then, sure, it can't hurt. If you're asking because you want to enter the America's Cup, you can still read Boating Monthly, but it won't in itself meaningfully increase your chances of winning the America's Cup.\""
},
{
"docid": "348445",
"title": "",
"text": "In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for."
},
{
"docid": "21313",
"title": "",
"text": "An oxymoron is something that contradicts itself. Inside trading is sharing information that isn't public. How the fuck do you think these hedge funds and investment banks can offer almost 50% returns during these times in our economy??? Oh yea it's called inside trading. Reason why it's an oxymoron is because trading information is considered ilegal yet that what everyone does on the market, rules are made to give off fear but past that it's all open roads and deep pockets. And if you really don't believe that stock market isn't rigged then there is no reason for me to explain myself on that because it would be like taking to a wall. And I thank you for being one of those people that thinks it's not rigged because you help my portfolio look good from your dumb investments."
},
{
"docid": "11148",
"title": "",
"text": "Reading financial statements is important, in the sense that it gives you a picture of whether revenues and profits are growing or shrinking, and what management thinks the future will look like. The challenge is, there are firms that make computers read filings for them and inform their trading strategy. If the computer thinks the stock price is below the growth model, it's likely to bid the stock up. And since it's automated it's moving it faster than you can open your web browser. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? In a sense, no. The only sensible trading strategy is to assume you hold things for as long as their fundamentals exceed market value. Financial statements are where you find those fundamentals. So you should read them. But your question is, is it worth it for investors? My answer is no; the market generally factors information in quickly and efficiently. You're better off sticking to passive mutual funds than trying to trade. The better reason to learn to read these filings is to get a better sense of your employer, potential employers, competitors and even suppliers. Knowing what your margins are, what your suppliers margins and acquisitions are, and what they're planning can inform your own decision making."
},
{
"docid": "412223",
"title": "",
"text": "A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible."
},
{
"docid": "240215",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\""
},
{
"docid": "142110",
"title": "",
"text": "\"He didn't sell in the \"\"normal\"\" way that most people think of when they hear the term \"\"sell.\"\" He engaged in a (perfectly legitimate) technique known as short selling, in which he borrows shares from his broker and sells them immediately. He's betting that the price of the stock will drop so he can buy them back at a lower price to return the borrowed shares back to his broker. He gets to pocket the difference. He had about $37,000 of cash in his account. Since he borrowed ~8400 shares and sold them immediately at $2/share, he got $16,800 in cash and owed his broker 8400 shares. So, his net purchasing power at the time of the short sale was $37,000 + $16,800 - 4800 shares * $2/share. As the price of the stock changes, his purchasing power will change according to this equation. He's allowed to continue to borrow these 8400 shares as long as his purchasing power remains above 0. That is, the broker requires him to have enough cash on hand to buy back all of his borrowed shares at any given moment. If his purchasing power ever goes negative, he'll be subject to a margin call: the broker will make him either deposit cash into his account or close his positions (sell long positions or buy back short positions) until it's positive again. The stock jumped up to $13.85 the next morning before the market opened (during \"\"before-hours\"\" trading). His purchasing power at that time was $37,000 + $16,800 - 8400 shares * $13.85/share = -$62,540. Since his purchasing power was negative, he was subject to a margin call. By the time he got out, he had to pay $17.50/share to buy back the 8400 shares that he borrowed, making his purchasing power -$101,600. This $101,600 was money that he borrowed from his broker to buy back the shares to fulfill his margin call. His huge loss was from borrowing shares from his broker. Note that his maximum potential loss is unlimited, since there is no limit to how much a stock can grow. Evidently, he failed to grasp the most important concept of short selling, which is that he's borrowing stock from his broker and he's obligated to give that stock back whenever his broker wants, no matter what it costs him to fulfill that obligation.\""
},
{
"docid": "307155",
"title": "",
"text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible."
},
{
"docid": "456436",
"title": "",
"text": "The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End."
},
{
"docid": "111240",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Traditional banks don't put their money onto the stock markets. In fact, the economic crisis was in part caused by the fact that banks were placing money into higher-risk portfolios and doing just that: in the UK there has been a debate for the last few years specifically around \"\"firewalling\"\" retail and investment bank operations entirely. What I was discussing was in the retail/consumer sector where the money comes in as mortgages & secured loans and - slightly riskier - unsecured credit, credit cards, etc. In that model, you do not need to be a genius. If I lend you $20k to buy a car and you don't repay me my money plus 8%, I get the car and therefore am unlikely to be seriously out of pocket. The only thing I have to do is make sure I lend to people likely to repay more often than I do to those who will not. And that, well, that's something we've got a few hundred years of experience with... If I walk onto the NYSE and start throwing around my cash at put option on exotic FX markets that are in turn responding to conditions almost impossible to truly understand, well, I'm sure we'd agree that it's hard to beat the market. That's why the investment banks who specialise in that market don't invest their own money: they make money from investing other people's cash. Clever guys. So we need to understand here there are two very different kinds of banks, with two very different business models, and it was the mixing of them that led to the disaster we've seen. Firewalling them makes sense to me! Communists who think banks are making money out of thin air don't seem to understand that, and so it's not surprising that they seem confused about what a bank is actually there for. Those who do get these two models must see that a retail bank is there to provide finance based on savings held and investment banks are there to help people invest in riskier markets. That does not mean they are \"\"magic\"\" or \"\"evil\"\". Now, they might argue that fractional reserve banking is a problem. I would imagine many of them would prefer the credit union model instead, but that's a different debate: that's the mechanics and detail, not the institutional need for existence.\""
},
{
"docid": "416569",
"title": "",
"text": "The biggest benefit to having a larger portfolio is relatively reduced transaction costs. If you buy a $830 share of Google at a broker with a $10 commission, the commission is 1.2% of your buy price. If you then sell it for $860, that's another 1.1% gone to commission. Another way to look at it is, of your $30 ($860 - $830) gain you've given up $20 to transaction costs, or 66.67% of the proceeds of your trade went to transaction costs. Now assume you traded 10 shares of Google. Your buy was $8,300 and you sold for $8,600. Your gain is $300 and you spent the same $20 to transact the buy and sell. Now you've only given up 6% of your proceeds ($20 divided by your $300 gain). You could also scale this up to 100 shares or even 1,000 shares. Generally, dividend reinvestment are done with no transaction cost. So you periodically get to bolster your position without losing more to transaction costs. For retail investors transaction costs can be meaningful. When you're wielding a $5,000,000 pot of money you can make your trades on a larger scale giving up relatively less to transaction costs."
},
{
"docid": "13573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Thanks! I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the \"\"industry standard\"\" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?\""
},
{
"docid": "398465",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Makes total sense. My main concern is what the worldwide speech monopolies (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Reddit) do with their power. I'm not concerned with the likes of Krispy Kreme. I am concerned when there are no alternatives and no competition (monopoly). The speech companies decide what gets seen and who can speak and they're often of the same political bent because they have similar (global) aims...meaning they don't care about the first amendment as long as they make $$ and satisfy the demands of bullies. If some blue-haired twenty something (or some bot) decides they don't like one of my sentences, they can effectively exercise their power and cut me off from the entire world to some non-insignificant extent for life. Sure you could jump to some \"\"thriving\"\" platform (that doesn't exist) and talk to a handful of people, but that's quite the restriction considering you previously had access to millions of voices with Twitter. YouTube trending is a good exercise in how brainwashing works. It's the same people every time with their banal opinions. Colbert and Seth Myers and preteens. Colbert is actually famous, so I get why he's trending somewhat...but daily? And Seth Myers? Do people even watch his show or does someone at Google simply want us to see his humourless rants every single day? I'd bet on the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "104789",
"title": "",
"text": "\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\""
},
{
"docid": "176717",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The T+3 \"\"rule\"\" relates only to accounting and not to trading. It does not prevent you from day trading. It simply means that the postings in you cash account will not appear until three business days after you have executed a trade. When you execute a trade and the order has been filled, you have all of the information you need to know the cash amounts that will hit your account three business days later. In a cash account, cash postings that arise from trading are treated as unsettled (for three days), but this does not mean that these funds are available for further trading. If you have $25,000 in your account on day 1, this does not mean that you will be able to trade more than $25,000 because your cash account has not yet been debited. Most cash accounts will include an item detailing \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". This will net out any unsettled business transacted. For example, if you have a cash account balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you purchase $10,000 worth of shares, then pending settlement in your cash account you will only have $15,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". Similarly, if you have a cash balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you \"\"day trade\"\", purchasing $15,000 and selling $10,000 worth of shares, then you will have the net of $20,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\" ($20,000 = $25,000 - $15,000 + $10,000). If by \"\"prop account\"\" you mean an account where you give discretion to a broker to trade on your behalf, then I think the issues of accounting will be the least of your worries. You will need to be worried about not being fleeced out of your hard earned savings by someone far more interested in lining their own pockets than making money for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "161201",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together."
},
{
"docid": "332278",
"title": "",
"text": "One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions."
},
{
"docid": "226197",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\""
},
{
"docid": "201326",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a hard time giving them a P/E higher than 25 on the absolute top end. Given current numbers, that takes another ~60% off their share price putting them right around $10. Now... that's my top end estimate, I'd probably be willing to buy right around $8. In order to support the IPO price, the models I've seen come in at projecting an average growth rate of 40% YoY for the next 5 years. If FB pulled that off, they'd be growing ~5X over the next 5 years (once compounded). As it stands, they've got 900B+ users. Doubling that would require a significant number of new people to start coming on line - 5x that would be impossible. So... next option... They figure out how to monetize existing users/traffic better. It's possible - they don't do a very good job with this as it stands, but they've got a fine line to walk. They need to pull it off without driving users, or advertisers, away. Suppose they were able to double their user base. They'd still need to do ~2.5x better per user to make the numbers. This doesn't take into account that the next billion users are significantly less valuable as an audience than the first billion. (Not in human terms, but in financial/marketing terms.) I'm willing to give them a 20% growth rate for the next 5 years. That'd put them at a bit better than 2.5x over that time. It's still a stretch. That should put them in the same P/E range as GOOG (currently trading at a P/E of 17ish). Any price higher than $10/share at this point is gambling on their ability to crack monetization. The higher you go, the higher you think the odds are. One last thing I'd keep in mind. Most of the early employees with options are locked out of selling for the first 6 months after the IPO. There's a fairly large number of shares that will become available when that time is up. I'm curious to see how many of the early employees call in rich and go start new companies. (Think about what happened to paypal after being sold to ebay - yelp, youtube, and others all came out of the early employees.) I'd be watching the quarterly reports through the quarter ending 12/31. The numbers at that point will give a better gauge of a proper valuation. I absolutely wouldn't hold shares of FB during the period when employees first have their chance to cash their lottery tickets."
}
] |
6525 | Does it make sense to trade my GOOGL shares for GOOG and pocket the difference? | [
{
"docid": "98150",
"title": "",
"text": "It appears very possible that Google will not have to pay any class C holders the settlement amount, given the structure of the settlement. This is precisely because of the arbitrage opportunity you've highlighted. This idea was mentioned last summer in Dealbreaker. As explained in a Dealbook article: The settlement requires Google to pay the following amounts if, one year from the issuance of the Class C shares, the value diverges according to the following formula: If the C share price is equal to or more than 1 percent, but less than 2 percent, below the A share price, 20 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 2 percent, but less than 3 percent, below the A share price, 40 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 3 percent, but less than 4 percent, below the A share price, 60 percent of the difference; If the C share price is equal to or more than 4 percent, but less than 5 percent, below the A share price, 80 percent of the difference.” If the C share price is equal to or more than 5 percent below the A share price, 100 percent of the difference, up to 5 percent. ... If the Class A shares trade around $450 (after the split/C issuance) and the C shares trade at a 4.5 percent discount during the year (or $429.75 per share), then investors expect a payment of: 80 percent times $450 times 4.5 percent = $16.20. The value of C shares would then be $445.95 ($429.75 plus $16.20). But if this is the new trading value during the year, that’s only a discount of less than 1 percent to the A shares. So no payment would be made. But if no payment is made, we are back to the full discount and this continues ad infinitum. In other words, the value of a stock can be displayed as: {equity value} + {dividend value} + {voting value} + {settlement value} = {total share value} If we ignore dividend and voting values, and ignore premiums and discounts for risk and so forth, then the value of a share is basic equity value plus anticipated settlement payoff. The Google Class C settlement is structured to reduce the payoff as the value converges. And the practice of arbitrage guarantees (if you buy into at least semi-strong EMH) that the price of C shares will be shored up by arbitrageurs that want the payoff. The voting value of GOOGL is effectively zero, since the non-traded Class B shares control all company decisions. So the value of the Class A GOOGL voting is virtually zero for the time being. The only divergence between GOOGL and GOOG price is dividends (which I believe is supposed to be the same) and the settlement payoff. Somebody who places zero value on the vote and who expects dividend difference to be zero should always prefer to buy GOOG to GOOGL until the price is equal, disregarding the settlement. So technically someone is better off owning GOOG, if dividends are the same and market prices are equal, just because the vote is worthless and the nonzero chance of a future settlement payoff is gravy. The arbitrage itself is present because a share that costs (as in the article) $429.75 is worth $445.95 if the settlement pays out at that rate. The stable equilibrium is probably either just before or just after the threshold where the settlement pays off, depending on how reliably arbitrageurs can predict the movement of GOOG and GOOGL. If I can buy a given stock for X but know that it's worth X+1, then I'm willing to pay up to X+1. In the google case, the GOOG stock is worth X+S, where S is an uncertain settlement payment that could be zero or could be substantial. We have six tiers of S (counting zero payoff), so that the price is likely to follow a pattern from X to X+S5 to X-S5+S4 to X-S4+S3, and climbing the tier ladder until it lands in the frontier between X+S1 and X+S0. Every time it jumps into X+S1, people should be willing to pay that new amount for GOOG, so the price moves out of payoff range and into X+S0, where people will only pay X. I'm actually simplifying here, since technically this is all based on future expectations. So the actual price you'd pay is expressed thus: {resale value of GOOG before settlement payoff = X} + ( {expectation that settlement payoff will pay 100% of difference = S5} * {expected nominal difference between GOOG and GOOGL = D} ) + ({S4} * {80% D}) + ({S3} * {60% D}) + ({S2} * {40% D}) + ({S1} * {20% D}) + ({S0} * {0% D}) = {price willing to pay for Class C GOOG = P} Plus you'd technically have to present value the whole thing for the time horizon, since the payoff is in a year. Note that I've shunted any voting/dividend analysis into X. It's reasonable to thing that S5, S4, S3, and maybe S2 are nearly zero, given the open arbitrage opportunity. And we know that S0 times 0% of D is zero. So the real analysis, again ignoring PV, is thus: P = X + (S1*D) Which is a long way of saying: what are the odds that GOOG will happen to be worth no more than 99% of GOOGL on the payoff determination date?"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "21313",
"title": "",
"text": "An oxymoron is something that contradicts itself. Inside trading is sharing information that isn't public. How the fuck do you think these hedge funds and investment banks can offer almost 50% returns during these times in our economy??? Oh yea it's called inside trading. Reason why it's an oxymoron is because trading information is considered ilegal yet that what everyone does on the market, rules are made to give off fear but past that it's all open roads and deep pockets. And if you really don't believe that stock market isn't rigged then there is no reason for me to explain myself on that because it would be like taking to a wall. And I thank you for being one of those people that thinks it's not rigged because you help my portfolio look good from your dumb investments."
},
{
"docid": "440370",
"title": "",
"text": "The essential difference b/n ADR and a common share is that ADR do not have Voting rights. Common share has. There are some ADR that would in certain conditions get converted to common stock, but by and large most ADR's would remain ADR's without any voting rights. If you are an individual investor, this difference should not matter as rarely one would hold such a large number of shares to vote on General meeting on various issues. The other difference is that since many countries have regulations on who can buy common shares, for example in India an Non Resident cannot directly buy any share, hence he would buy ADR. Thus ADR would be priced more in the respective market if there is demand. For example Infosys Technologies, an India Company has ADR on NYSE. This is more expensive around 1.5 times the price of the common share available in India (at current exchange rate). Thus if you are able to invest with equal ease in HK (have broker / trading account etc), consider the taxation of the gains in HK as well the tax treatment in US for overseas gains then its recommended that you go for Common Stock in HK. Else it would make sense to buy in US."
},
{
"docid": "398465",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Makes total sense. My main concern is what the worldwide speech monopolies (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google, Reddit) do with their power. I'm not concerned with the likes of Krispy Kreme. I am concerned when there are no alternatives and no competition (monopoly). The speech companies decide what gets seen and who can speak and they're often of the same political bent because they have similar (global) aims...meaning they don't care about the first amendment as long as they make $$ and satisfy the demands of bullies. If some blue-haired twenty something (or some bot) decides they don't like one of my sentences, they can effectively exercise their power and cut me off from the entire world to some non-insignificant extent for life. Sure you could jump to some \"\"thriving\"\" platform (that doesn't exist) and talk to a handful of people, but that's quite the restriction considering you previously had access to millions of voices with Twitter. YouTube trending is a good exercise in how brainwashing works. It's the same people every time with their banal opinions. Colbert and Seth Myers and preteens. Colbert is actually famous, so I get why he's trending somewhat...but daily? And Seth Myers? Do people even watch his show or does someone at Google simply want us to see his humourless rants every single day? I'd bet on the latter.\""
},
{
"docid": "137465",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price."
},
{
"docid": "120986",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this is off topic, but here is a stab: So these are cashless. It could be a way to smooth out the harsh reality of capitalism (I overproduced my product, I have more capacity than I can sell) and I can trade those good to other capitalists who similarly poorly planned production or capacity. Therefore the market for a system like is limited to businesses that do not plan well. Business that plan production or capacity to levels they can already sell for cash do not need a private system to offload goods. Alternatives to such a system include: (I don't know how many businesses are really in this over production / over capacity state. If my assumption that it isn't many is wrong, my answer is garbage.) This is a bartering system with a brokerage. I think we have historically found that common currencies create more trade and economic activity because the value of the note in your pocket, which is the same type of note in my pocket, is common and understood. Exchange rates typically slow down trade. (There are many other reasons to have different currency or notes on a global sale, but the exchange certainly is a hurdle to clear.) This brokerage is essentially adding a new currency (in a grand metaphor). And that new currency is only spendable on their brokerage, which is of limited use to society as a whole, assuming that society as a whole isn't a participating member of that brokerage. I can't really think of why this type of exchange is better than the current system we have now. I wouldn't invest in this as a business, or invest in this as a person looking for opportunity."
},
{
"docid": "161201",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together."
},
{
"docid": "574327",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, what structure does your index fund have? If it is an open-end mutual fund, there are no bid/ask spread as the structure of this security is that it is priced once a day and transactions are done with that price. If it is an exchange-traded fund, then the question becomes how well are authorized participants taking advantage of the spread to make the fund track the index well? This is where you have to get into the Creation and Redemption unit construct of the exchange-traded fund where there are \"\"in-kind\"\" transactions done to either create new shares of the fund or redeem out shares of the fund. In either case, you are making some serious assumptions about the structure of the fund that don't make sense given how these are built. Index funds have lower expense ratios and are thus cheaper than other mutual funds that may take on more costs. If you want suggested reading on this, look at the investing books of John C. Bogle who studied some of this rather extensively, in addition to being one of the first to create an index fund that became known as \"\"Bogle's Folly,\"\" where a couple of key ones would be \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor\"\" and \"\"Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor.\"\" In the case of an open-end fund, there has to be a portion of the fund in cash to handle transaction costs of running the fund as there are management fees to come from running the fund in addition to dividends from the stocks that have to be carefully re-invested and other matters that make this quite easy to note. Vanguard 500 Index Investor portfolio(VFINX) has .38% in cash as an example here where you could look at any open-end mutual fund's portfolio and notice that there may well be some in cash as part of how the fund is managed. It’s the Execution, Stupid would be one of a few articles that looks at the idea of \"\"tracking error\"\" or how well does an index fund actually track the index where it can be noted that in some cases, there can be a little bit of active management in the fund. Just as a minor side note, when I lived in the US I did invest in index funds and found them to be a good investment. I'd still recommend them though I'd argue that while some want to see these as really simple investments, there can be details that make them quite interesting to my mind. How is its price set then? The price is computed by taking the sum value of all the assets of the fund minus the liabilities and divided by the number of outstanding shares. The price of the assets would include the closing price on the stock rather than a bid or ask, similar pricing for bonds held by the fund, derivatives and cash equivalents. Similarly, the liabilities would be costs a fund has to pay that may not have been paid yet such as management fees, brokerage costs, etc. Is it a weighted average of all the underlying stock spreads, or does it stand on its own and stems from the usual supply & demand laws ? There isn't any spread used in determining the \"\"Net Asset Value\"\" for the fund. The fund prices are determined after the market is closed and so a closing price can be used for stocks. The liabilities could include the costs to run the fund as part of the accounting in the fund, that most items have to come down to either being an asset, something with a positive value, or a liability, something with a negative value. Something to consider also is the size of the fund. With over $7,000,000,000 in assets, a .01% amount is still $700,000 which is quite a large amount in some ways.\""
},
{
"docid": "313421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\""
},
{
"docid": "139094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\""
},
{
"docid": "116647",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The game is not zero sum. When a friend and I chop down a tree, and build a house from it, the house has value, far greater than the value of a standing tree. Our labor has turned into something of value. In theory, a company starts from an idea, and offers either a good or service to create value. There are scams that make it seem like a Vegas casino. There are times a stock will trade for well above what it should. When I buy the S&P index at a fair price for 1000 (through an etf or fund) and years later it's 1400, the gain isn't out of someone else's pocket, else the amount of wealth in the world would be fixed and that's not the case. Over time, investors lag the market return for multiple reasons, trading costs, bad timing, etc. Statements such as \"\"90% lose money\"\" are hyperbole meant to separate you from your money. A self fulfilling prophesy. The question of lagging the market is another story - I have no data to support my observation, but I'd imagine that well over 90% lag the broad market. A detailed explanation is too long for this forum, but simply put, there are trading costs. If I invest in an S&P ETF that costs .1% per year, I'll see a return of say 9.9% over decades if the market return is 10%. Over 40 years, this is 4364% compounded, vs the index 4526% compounded, a difference of less than 4% in final wealth. There are load funds that charge more than this just to buy in (5% anyone?). Lagging by a small fraction is a far cry from 'losing money.' There is an annual report by a company named Dalbar that tracks investor performance. For the 20 year period ending 12/31/10 the S&P returned 9.14% and Dalbar calculates the average investor had an average return of 3.83%. Pretty bad, but not zero. Since you don't cite a particular article or source, there may be more to the story. Day traders are likely to lose. As are a series of other types of traders in other markets, Forex for one. While your question may be interesting, its premise of \"\"many experts say....\"\" without naming even one leaves room for doubt. Note - I've updated the link for the 2015 report. And 4 years later, I see that when searching on that 90% statistic, the articles are about day traders. That actually makes sense to me.\""
},
{
"docid": "176717",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The T+3 \"\"rule\"\" relates only to accounting and not to trading. It does not prevent you from day trading. It simply means that the postings in you cash account will not appear until three business days after you have executed a trade. When you execute a trade and the order has been filled, you have all of the information you need to know the cash amounts that will hit your account three business days later. In a cash account, cash postings that arise from trading are treated as unsettled (for three days), but this does not mean that these funds are available for further trading. If you have $25,000 in your account on day 1, this does not mean that you will be able to trade more than $25,000 because your cash account has not yet been debited. Most cash accounts will include an item detailing \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". This will net out any unsettled business transacted. For example, if you have a cash account balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you purchase $10,000 worth of shares, then pending settlement in your cash account you will only have $15,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". Similarly, if you have a cash balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you \"\"day trade\"\", purchasing $15,000 and selling $10,000 worth of shares, then you will have the net of $20,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\" ($20,000 = $25,000 - $15,000 + $10,000). If by \"\"prop account\"\" you mean an account where you give discretion to a broker to trade on your behalf, then I think the issues of accounting will be the least of your worries. You will need to be worried about not being fleeced out of your hard earned savings by someone far more interested in lining their own pockets than making money for you.\""
},
{
"docid": "81865",
"title": "",
"text": "This is going to be a bit of a shameless plug, but I've build a portfolio tracking website to track your portfolio and be able to share it (in read-only mode) as well. It is at http://frano.carelessmusings.com and currently in beta. Most portfolio trackers are behind a login wall and thus will lack the sharing function you are looking for. Examples of these are: Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Reuters Portfolios, MorningStart Portfolios, and many others. Another very quick and easy solution (if you are not trading too often) is a shared google docs spreadsheet. Gdocs has integration with google finance and can retrieve prices for stocks by symbol. A spreadsheet can contain the following: Symbol, Quantity, Avg. Buy Price, Price, P/L, P/L% and so on. The current price and P/L data can be functions that use the google finance API. Hope this helps, and if you check out my site please let me know what you think and what I could change."
},
{
"docid": "307155",
"title": "",
"text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible."
},
{
"docid": "390529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the US, a private company with less than 500 owners can dictate who can or can't become a shareholder (this is true in general, but I'm sure there are loopholes). Prior to Google's IPO I could not buy shares in Google at any price. The reason Google was \"\"forced\"\" to go public is the 500 shareholder rule. At a high level, with 500 shareholders the company is forced to do some extra financial accounting and they no longer can control who owns a share of the company, allowing me to purchase shares of google at that point. At that point, it typically becomes in the companies best interest to go public. See this article about Google approaching the 500 shareholder limit in 2003. Further, Sorkin is not quite correct that \"\"securities laws mandate that the company go public\"\" if by \"\"go public\"\" we mean list on a stock exchange, available for general purchase. Securities laws mandate what has to be reported in financial reporting and when you have to report it. Securities laws also can dictate restrictions on ownership of stock and if a company can impose their own restrictions. A group of investors cannot force a company onto a stock exchange. If shares of Facebook are already for sale to anyone, then having >500 shareholders will force Facebook to file more paperwork with the SEC, it won't force Facebook onto the NYSE or NASDAQ. When that point is reached, it may be in Facebook's best interest to have an IPO, but they will not be required by law to do so. Update: CNN article discusses likely Facebook IPO in 2012. When companies have more than 500 shareholders, they're required to make significant financial disclosures -- though they can choose to remain private and keep their stock from trading publicly. However, most companies facing mandatory disclosures opt to go public. The Securities and Exchange Commission gives businesses lots of time to prepare for that milestone. Companies have until 120 days after the end of the fiscal year in which they cross the 500-shareholder line to begin making their disclosures. If Facebook tips the scale this year, that gives it until April 2012 to start filing financial reports.\""
},
{
"docid": "76330",
"title": "",
"text": "You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?"
},
{
"docid": "285502",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Equation: (M x 12) + MOOP = Worst case scenario cost Where M equals the monthly cost and MOOP is the maximum out of pocket amount. So, if a plan costs $500 a month and the maximum out of pocket amount is $12,000 - which in a worst case scenario you would pay (it's almost always over the deductible) ... ($500 x 12) + 12,000 = $18,000 Most people look at the deductible, but be aware this is incorrect in a worst case. The last one (maximum out of pocket) really hurts most people because they overlook it: Deductible vs. out-of-pocket maximum The difference between your deductible and an out-of-pocket maximum is subtle but important. The out-of-pocket maximum is typically higher than your deductible to account for things like co-pays and co-insurance. For example, if you hit your deductible of $2,500 but continue to go for office visits with a $25 co-pay, you’ll still have to pay that co-pay until you’ve spent your out-of-pocket maximum, at which time your insurance would take over and cover everything. New in 2016: embedded out-of-pocket maximums One change in 2016 is that, even with an aggregate deductible, one person cannot pay more than the individual out-of-pocket maximum within a family plan, even if the aggregate deductible is more than the individual out-of-pocket maximum, which is $6,850 for 2016. For instance, even if the overall aggregate deductible was $10,000, a single person in that family plan could not incur more than $6,850 in out-of-pocket expenses. (In 2017, the out-of-pocket maximum will increase to $7,150.) After they hit that number, insurance covers everything for that person, even as the rest of the family is still subject to the deductible. From your question: Thanks - not sure I totally follow you. My question is, essentially: \"\"Say a typical large employer X gives you 'healthcare' as a benefit on top of your salary. In fact, how much does that cost corporation X each year?\"\" ie, meaning, in the US, about how much does that typically cost a corporation X each year? That's a good question because they may qualify for tax advantages by offering to a number of employees and there may be other benefits if they encourage certain tests (like blood work and they waive the monthly fee). More than likely, using the above equation may be the maximum that they'll pay each year per employee and it might be less depending on the tax qualifications. You can read this answer of the question and it appears they are paying within the range of these premiums listed above this.\""
},
{
"docid": "13573",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Thanks! I came across many books on credit risk in my google searches - what I'm really looking for is which one is the \"\"industry standard\"\" reading (does that make sense?). For example, in derivatives, everybody recommends John C. Hull's Options... book. Why of all the CRM books, do you recommend those three in particular?\""
},
{
"docid": "176883",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A 'Call' gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a particular price. The price, called the \"\"strike price\"\" is fixed when you buy the option. Let's run through an example - AAPL trades @ $259. You think it's going up over the next year, and you decide to buy the $280 Jan11 call for $12. Here are the details of this trade. Your cost is $1200 as options are traded on 100 shares each. You start to have the potential to make money only as Apple rises above $280 and the option trades \"\"in the money.\"\" It would take a move to $292 for you to break even, but after that, you are making $100 for each dollar it goes higher. At $300, your $1200 would be worth $2000, for example. A 16% move on the stock and a 67% increase on your money. On the other hand, if the stock doesn't rise enough by January 2011, you lose it all. A couple points here - American options are traded at any time. If the stock goes up next week, your $1200 may be worth $1500 and you can sell. If the option is not \"\"in the money\"\" its value is pure time value. There have been claims made that most options expire worthless. This of course is nonsense, you can see there will always be options with a strike below the price of the stock at expiration and those options are \"\"in the money.\"\" Of course, we don't know what those options were traded at. On the other end of this trade is the option seller. If he owns Apple, the sale is called a \"\"covered call\"\" and he is basically saying he's ok if the stock goes up enough that the buyer will get his shares for that price. For him, he knows that he'll get $292 (the $280, plus the option sale of $12) for a stock that is only $259 today. If the stock stays under $280, he just pocketed $12, 4.6% of the stock value, in just 3 months. This is why call writing can be a decent strategy for some investors. Especially if the market goes down, you can think of it as the investor lowering his cost by that $12. This particular strategy works best in a flat to down market. Of course in a fast rising market, the seller misses out on potentially high gains. (I'll call it quits here, just to say a Put is the mirror image, you have the right to sell a stock at a given price. It's the difference similar to shorting a stock as opposed to buying it.) If you have a follow up question - happy to help. EDIT - Apple closed on Jan 21, 2011 at $326.72, the $280 call would have been worth $46.72 vs the purchase price of $12. Nearly 4X return (A 289% gain) in just over 4 months for a stock move of 26%. This is the leverage you can have with options. Any stock could just as easily trade flat to down, and the entire option premium, lost.\""
},
{
"docid": "37116",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes. You got it right. If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28. The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out."
}
] |
6525 | Does it make sense to trade my GOOGL shares for GOOG and pocket the difference? | [
{
"docid": "106541",
"title": "",
"text": "Too much fiddling with your portfolio if the difference is 3-4% or less (as it's become in recent months). Hands off is the better advice. As for buying shares, go for whichever is the cheapest (i.e. Goog rather than Googl) because the voting right with the latter is merely symbolic. And who attends shareholders' meetings, for Pete's sake? On the other hand, if your holdings in the company are way up in the triple (maybe even quadruple) figures, then it might make sense to do the math and take the time to squeeze an extra percentage point or two out of your Googl purchases. The idle rich occupying the exclusive club that includes only the top 1% of the population needs to have somethinng to do with its time. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrambling to make a living--leaving only enough time to visit our portfolios as often as Buffett advises (about twice a year)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "58290",
"title": "",
"text": "The original poster's concern is valid. Sometimes, market orders do get executed at seemingly ridiculous prices. In addition to Victor's reasons for using a market order, sometimes a seller does not care how low the price is. For example, after a company goes broke, its stock continues to trade for a while. This allows shareholders to realize their losses for tax purposes, and allows short-sellers to close out their positions. A shareholder who is trying to realize a 10 dollar per share loss for tax purposes probably does not care whether he gets 10 cents per share or 0.001 cents per share, so a sell-at-market order makes sense."
},
{
"docid": "417407",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As you know, the market is in turmoil today. At this moment, 11:45 am, the S&P is down 2.3%, 45 points. But, premarket, it was down 100 points. Now, premarket, I heard Jim Cramer say, \"\"today is not the day to use market orders.\"\" Yes, on Mad Money, he seems a bit eccentric, but he does offer some wise advice at times. In my opinion, your stock had some people that did just that. A market order. And, regardless of the fundamentals of this company, buyers had no orders to buy. Except a couple wise guys (in both senses) that put in buys at crazy prices. And they filled. With an Apple, trading around $100, the book probably has millions of shares on order with a buy at $80 or higher. Just an example. I'd bet there were a number of stocks that had the profile of yours, i.e. a chart reflecting trades similar to a flash crash. There are some traders smiling ear to ear, and some crying in their beer. (Note - I use the phrase \"\"in my opinion.\"\" This is the only explanation I can imagine. Occam's Razor.)\""
},
{
"docid": "387035",
"title": "",
"text": "Your gain is $1408. The difference between 32% of your gain and 15% of your gain is $236.36 or $1.60 per share. If you sell now, you have $3957.44 after taxes. Forget about the ESPP for a moment. Are you be willing to wager $4000 on the proposition that your company's stock price won't go down more than $1.60 or so over the next 18 months? I've never felt it was worth it. Also, I never thought it made much sense to own any of my employer's stock. If their business does poorly, I'd prefer not to have both my job and my money at risk. If you sell now: Now assuming you hold for 18 months, pay 15% capital gains tax, and the stock price drops by $1.60 to $23.40:"
},
{
"docid": "473798",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Going private does not mean that the company buys its own shares, only that the freely traded shares are bought up by a private entity (this can be management => \"\"management buy-out\"\" or it can be a private investor). The stock is then not traded publicly and the company gets rid of a whole slew of compliance obligations. In your stated example the company would essentially convert all its stock to treasury stock, which does not pay dividends and has no voting rights. From what I gather from some googling this would actually imply that the company would liquidate itself since it now has no capital anymore. Not sure on this though, an accountant might be able to help here...\""
},
{
"docid": "506617",
"title": "",
"text": "You seem to be confused - try answering these: 1. Whom do the traders work for? 2. What are the traders trading and how do they acquire those vehicles? 3. How does a company make money and how does that money get deployed? Google will be crucial for these, but will answer your questions. If you choose to get in finance, remember the golden rule: if you have a question, Google it first."
},
{
"docid": "291548",
"title": "",
"text": "Let's assume that the bonds have a par value of $1,000. If conversion happens, then one bond would be converted into 500 shares. The price in the market is unimportant. Regardless of the share price in the market, the income per share would be increased by the absence of $70 in interest expense. It would be decreased by the lost tax deduction. It would be further diluted by the increase in 500 shares. Likewise, the debt would be extinguished and the equity section increased. Whether it increased or decreased on a per share basis would depend upon the average amount paid in per share in the currently existing structure, adjusted for changes in retained earnings since the initial offering and for any treasury shares. There would be a loss in value, generally, if it is trading far from $2.00 because it would be valued based on the market price. Had the bond not converted, it would trade in the market as a pure bond if the stock price is far below the strike price and as an ordinary pure bond plus a premium if near enough to the strike price in a manner that depends upon the time remaining under the conversion privilege. I cannot think of a general case where someone would want to convert below strike and indeed, barring a very strange tax, inheritance or legal situation (such as a weird divorce), I cannot think of a case where it would make sense. It often does not make sense to convert far from maturity either as the option premium only vanishes well above $2. The primary case for conversion would be where the after-tax dividend is greater than the after-tax interest payment."
},
{
"docid": "188232",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves \"\"dividend investors\"\"? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends. Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad.\""
},
{
"docid": "102113",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your math is correct. These kind of returns are possible in the capital markets. (By the way, Google Finance shows something completely different for $CANV than my trading console in ThinkorSwim, ToS shows a high of $201, but I believe there may have been some reverse splits that are not accurately reflected in either of these charts) The problems with this strategy are liquidity and timing. Let's talk about liquidity, because that is a greater factor here than the random psychological factors that would have affected you LONG LONG before your $1,000 allowance was worth a million dollars. If you bought $1000 worth of this stock at $.05 share, this would have been 20,000 shares. The week of October 11th, 2011, during the ENTIRE WEEK only 5,000 shares were traded. From this alone, you can see that it would have been impossible for you to even acquire 20,000 shares, for yourself at $.05 because there was nobody to sell them to you. We can't even look at the next week, because there WERE NO TRADES WHATSOEVER, so we have to skip all the way to November 11th, where indeed over 30,000 shares were traded. But this pushed the price all the way up to $2.00, again, there was no way you could have gotten 20,000 shares at $.05 So now, lets talk about liquidation of your shares. After several other highs and lows in the $20s and $30s, are you telling me that after holding this stock for 2 years you WOULDN'T have taken a $500,000 profit at $25.00 ? We are talking about someone that is investing with $1,000 here. I have my doubts that there was no time between October 2011 and January 2014 that you didn't think \"\"hm this extra $100,000 would be really useful right now.. sell!\"\" Lets say you actually held your $1,000 to $85.55 there were EXACTLY TWO DAYS where that was the top of the market, and in those two days the volume was ~24,000 shares one day and ~11,000 shares the next day. This is BARELY enough time for you to sell your shares, because you would have been the majority of the volume, most likely QUADRUPLING the sell side quotes. As soon as the market saw your sell order there would be a massive selloff of people trying to sell before you do, because they could barely get their shares filled (not enough buyers) let alone someone with five times the amount of shares that day. Yes, you could have made a lot of money. Doing that simplistic math does not tell you the whole story.\""
},
{
"docid": "192696",
"title": "",
"text": "I think there is a huge difference to what Google does with intangible assets as compared to a company such as Facebook. Facebook floated and as people thought it was highly overvalued the share price plummeted. Google on the other hand has many years of relatively stable growth and share price in a market that is generally pretty well informed. So I disagree."
},
{
"docid": "307155",
"title": "",
"text": "This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible."
},
{
"docid": "574327",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, what structure does your index fund have? If it is an open-end mutual fund, there are no bid/ask spread as the structure of this security is that it is priced once a day and transactions are done with that price. If it is an exchange-traded fund, then the question becomes how well are authorized participants taking advantage of the spread to make the fund track the index well? This is where you have to get into the Creation and Redemption unit construct of the exchange-traded fund where there are \"\"in-kind\"\" transactions done to either create new shares of the fund or redeem out shares of the fund. In either case, you are making some serious assumptions about the structure of the fund that don't make sense given how these are built. Index funds have lower expense ratios and are thus cheaper than other mutual funds that may take on more costs. If you want suggested reading on this, look at the investing books of John C. Bogle who studied some of this rather extensively, in addition to being one of the first to create an index fund that became known as \"\"Bogle's Folly,\"\" where a couple of key ones would be \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor\"\" and \"\"Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor.\"\" In the case of an open-end fund, there has to be a portion of the fund in cash to handle transaction costs of running the fund as there are management fees to come from running the fund in addition to dividends from the stocks that have to be carefully re-invested and other matters that make this quite easy to note. Vanguard 500 Index Investor portfolio(VFINX) has .38% in cash as an example here where you could look at any open-end mutual fund's portfolio and notice that there may well be some in cash as part of how the fund is managed. It’s the Execution, Stupid would be one of a few articles that looks at the idea of \"\"tracking error\"\" or how well does an index fund actually track the index where it can be noted that in some cases, there can be a little bit of active management in the fund. Just as a minor side note, when I lived in the US I did invest in index funds and found them to be a good investment. I'd still recommend them though I'd argue that while some want to see these as really simple investments, there can be details that make them quite interesting to my mind. How is its price set then? The price is computed by taking the sum value of all the assets of the fund minus the liabilities and divided by the number of outstanding shares. The price of the assets would include the closing price on the stock rather than a bid or ask, similar pricing for bonds held by the fund, derivatives and cash equivalents. Similarly, the liabilities would be costs a fund has to pay that may not have been paid yet such as management fees, brokerage costs, etc. Is it a weighted average of all the underlying stock spreads, or does it stand on its own and stems from the usual supply & demand laws ? There isn't any spread used in determining the \"\"Net Asset Value\"\" for the fund. The fund prices are determined after the market is closed and so a closing price can be used for stocks. The liabilities could include the costs to run the fund as part of the accounting in the fund, that most items have to come down to either being an asset, something with a positive value, or a liability, something with a negative value. Something to consider also is the size of the fund. With over $7,000,000,000 in assets, a .01% amount is still $700,000 which is quite a large amount in some ways.\""
},
{
"docid": "161201",
"title": "",
"text": "Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together."
},
{
"docid": "405474",
"title": "",
"text": "The difference is that Yahoo is showing the unadjusted price that the security traded for on that date, while google is adjusting for price splits. This means that Google is showing how much you would have had to pay to get what is now one share. Since 1979, JNJ has split 3-for-1 once, and 2-for-1 four times. 3x2x2x2x2 = 48. If you bought 1 share at that time, you would now have 48 shares today. Yahoo is showing a price of $66 for what was then 1 share. $66/48 = 1.375, which Google rounds to 1.38. You can see this if you get the prices from May 14-21, 1981. The stock split 3-for-1, and the price dropped from 108 to 36.38. Yahoo's adjusted close column has not been accurate since they re-wrote the Finance website. It now just represents the closing price. The other relevant field on Yahoo is the Adj. Close. This adjusts for splits, but also adjusts for dividends. Hence why this doesn't match either the Google or Yahoo numbers."
},
{
"docid": "585766",
"title": "",
"text": "It's not about resources, it's about solving problems that are unsolved. Sharing, as it turned out, was not an unmet need as Google had thought. Sharing through circles is not a good user experience. It's confusing to the mass market and only makes sense to Google engineer/early adopter types"
},
{
"docid": "313421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\""
},
{
"docid": "390529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the US, a private company with less than 500 owners can dictate who can or can't become a shareholder (this is true in general, but I'm sure there are loopholes). Prior to Google's IPO I could not buy shares in Google at any price. The reason Google was \"\"forced\"\" to go public is the 500 shareholder rule. At a high level, with 500 shareholders the company is forced to do some extra financial accounting and they no longer can control who owns a share of the company, allowing me to purchase shares of google at that point. At that point, it typically becomes in the companies best interest to go public. See this article about Google approaching the 500 shareholder limit in 2003. Further, Sorkin is not quite correct that \"\"securities laws mandate that the company go public\"\" if by \"\"go public\"\" we mean list on a stock exchange, available for general purchase. Securities laws mandate what has to be reported in financial reporting and when you have to report it. Securities laws also can dictate restrictions on ownership of stock and if a company can impose their own restrictions. A group of investors cannot force a company onto a stock exchange. If shares of Facebook are already for sale to anyone, then having >500 shareholders will force Facebook to file more paperwork with the SEC, it won't force Facebook onto the NYSE or NASDAQ. When that point is reached, it may be in Facebook's best interest to have an IPO, but they will not be required by law to do so. Update: CNN article discusses likely Facebook IPO in 2012. When companies have more than 500 shareholders, they're required to make significant financial disclosures -- though they can choose to remain private and keep their stock from trading publicly. However, most companies facing mandatory disclosures opt to go public. The Securities and Exchange Commission gives businesses lots of time to prepare for that milestone. Companies have until 120 days after the end of the fiscal year in which they cross the 500-shareholder line to begin making their disclosures. If Facebook tips the scale this year, that gives it until April 2012 to start filing financial reports.\""
},
{
"docid": "81865",
"title": "",
"text": "This is going to be a bit of a shameless plug, but I've build a portfolio tracking website to track your portfolio and be able to share it (in read-only mode) as well. It is at http://frano.carelessmusings.com and currently in beta. Most portfolio trackers are behind a login wall and thus will lack the sharing function you are looking for. Examples of these are: Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Reuters Portfolios, MorningStart Portfolios, and many others. Another very quick and easy solution (if you are not trading too often) is a shared google docs spreadsheet. Gdocs has integration with google finance and can retrieve prices for stocks by symbol. A spreadsheet can contain the following: Symbol, Quantity, Avg. Buy Price, Price, P/L, P/L% and so on. The current price and P/L data can be functions that use the google finance API. Hope this helps, and if you check out my site please let me know what you think and what I could change."
},
{
"docid": "384265",
"title": "",
"text": "This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices. I would call them up and ask."
},
{
"docid": "512062",
"title": "",
"text": "If the first one is literally a company name, then 'company name' is fine. However, companies can issue shares more than once, and those shares might be traded separately, so you could have 'Google ordinary', 'Google preference', 'Google ordinary issue B'. Seeing the name spelled out in full like this isn't as common as just the company name, but I'd normally see it referred to as 'display name'. The second one is 'symbol', 'ticker', 'ID', and others. Globally, there are many incompatible ways of referring to a stock, depending on where it's listed (companies can have dual listings, and different exchanges have different conventions), and who's referring to it (Bloomberg and Reuters have different sets of IDs, with no predictable mapping between them). So there's no one shorthand name, and the word you use depends on the context. However, 'symbol' or 'ticker' is normally fine."
}
] |
6554 | Mutual fund value went down, shares went up, no action taken by me | [
{
"docid": "583203",
"title": "",
"text": "You did something that you shouldn't have done; you bought a dividend. Most mutual fund companies have educational materials on their sites that recommend against making new investments in mutual funds in the last two months of the year because most mutual funds distribute their earnings (dividends, capital gains etc) to their shareholders in December, and the share price of the funds goes down in the amount of the per share distribution. These distributions can be taken in cash or can be re-invested in the fund; you most likely chose the latter option (it is often the default choice if you ignored all this because you are a newbie). For those who choose to reinvest, the number of shares in the mutual fund increases, but since the price of the shares has decreased, the net amount remains the same. You own more shares at a lower price than the day before when the price was higher but the total value of your account is the same (ignoring normal market fluctuations in the price of the actual stocks held by the fund. Regardless of whether you take the distributions as cash or re-invest in the fund, that money is taxable income to you (unless the fund is owned inside a 401k or IRA or other tax-deferred investment program). You bought 56 shares at a price of $17.857 per share (net cost $1000). The fund distributed its earnings shortly thereafter and gave you 71.333-56= 15.333 additional shares. The new share price is $14.11. So, the total value of your investment is $1012, but the amount that you have invested in the account is the original $1000 plus the amount of the distribution which is (roughly) $14.11 x 15.333 = $216. Your total investment of $1216 is now worth $1012 only, and so you have actually lost money. Besides, you owe income tax on that $216 dividend that you received. Do you see why the mutual fund companies recommend against making new investments late in the year? If you had waited till after the mutual fund had made its distribution, you could have bought $1000/14.11 = 70.871 shares and wouldn't have owed tax on that distribution that you just bought by making the investment just before the distribution was made. See also my answer to this recent question about investing in mutual funds."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "321637",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\""
},
{
"docid": "179737",
"title": "",
"text": "Contrary to what you might have heard, moving money between mutual funds, whether or not in the same family of funds, is a taxable event, assuming, of course, that the funds are not in tax-deferred retirement accounts. About the only thing that is not taxable is moving funds between share classes in the same mutual fund, e.g. a conversion from what Vanguard refers to as Investor Shares to Admiral Shares in the same fund. In some cases, the Admiral Shares may have a considerably different price (for example, Vanguard Health Care Fund Investor Shares (VGHCX) and Admiral Shares (VGHAX) are priced at $215.83 and $91.04 respectively and so changing from one class to the other changes the number of shares owned considerably while the net value of the investment remains unchanged."
},
{
"docid": "339854",
"title": "",
"text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability."
},
{
"docid": "287600",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Market cap doesn't mean that much money went into the system. Money in equals money out over time, and is not directly tied to market cap, which can actually be lower if price drops far enough. These concepts are the same for all traded assets, such as stocks, bonds, and commodities. \"\"Market cap\"\" is simply the current price times the number of shares available in the market. So a $300 billion market cap does not mean $300 billion was paid to somebody to buy it all. Instead, what's happened is that some money went in at first, but much much less, and then price increased. Bitcoin is a little different in that \"\"money in\"\" for many innovators and early adopters was in the form of time spent and contributing to the network (what they call mining). 1 Now, as to the price jump, that's an effect of market forces. For many reasons, the market has clamored to buy bitcoin over the last year 2, but many already holding bitcoin weren't ready to sell. Supply and demand worked in a way that increased price. Supply low, demand high, price increases. This situation could easily reverse. Just as suddenly as the market wanted bitcoin it can decide it doesn't want bitcoin. Supply and demand would work in a way that would decrease price. Supply high, demand low, price decreases. This kind of massive market price movement in this short timeframe is exactly what traders mean by \"\"volatile\"\". It's actually not that unusual, it's just that most stocks and other assets that experience such gains don't get much media attention. Further, gains like this often reflect \"\"inflated\"\" prices, market \"\"euphoria\"\", and trading \"\"bubbles\"\". All of these terms essentially mean \"\"price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value\"\". If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the \"\"money in equals money out\"\" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left \"\"holding the bag\"\", meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a \"\"ponzi\"\" scheme or \"\"pyramid\"\" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to \"\"blockchain\"\". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the \"\"dot com bubble\"\", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding \"\".com\"\" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many \"\"penny stocks\"\" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new \"\"store of value.\"\" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown.\""
},
{
"docid": "140349",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on."
},
{
"docid": "61853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\""
},
{
"docid": "171072",
"title": "",
"text": "I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck."
},
{
"docid": "548673",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\""
},
{
"docid": "29184",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Does the bolded sentence apply for ETFs and ETF companies? No, the value of an ETF is determined by an exchange and thus the value of the share is whatever the trading price is. Thus, the price of an ETF may go up or down just like other securities. Money market funds can be a bit different as the mutual fund company will typically step in to avoid \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" that could happen as a failure for that kind of fund. To wit, must ETF companies invest a dollar in the ETF for every dollar that an investor deposited in this aforesaid ETF? No, because an ETF is traded as shares on the market, unless you are using the creation/redemption mechanism for the ETF, you are buying and selling shares like most retail investors I'd suspect. If you are using the creation/redemption system then there are baskets of other securities that are being swapped either for shares in the ETF or from shares in the ETF.\""
},
{
"docid": "431268",
"title": "",
"text": "Have you changed how you handle fund distributions? While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase. While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day. I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year. Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now. Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund."
},
{
"docid": "584128",
"title": "",
"text": "Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value."
},
{
"docid": "201361",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\""
},
{
"docid": "270992",
"title": "",
"text": "The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps."
},
{
"docid": "516267",
"title": "",
"text": "To avoid having it become overly complicated, I suggest it be run as would a mutual fund. Mutual funds transact each evening to set a price. Transactions for purchases or sales are done at that price each evening. Initially, you have a dollar amount invested for each person. You can calculate the percent of the 'fund' each has, and, assuming the total is under $10K, 7 digits after the decimal accuracy is enough to track each share to the 1/10 cent. When new money is added, that night, you calculate the exact value of investments, and add the new funds, so each person now has a smaller share of the larger fund. If you wish, you can normalize this to 'share value' so my initial investment of $1000 is 100 shares regardless of the total amount invested. Then when new money comes in, the 'shares' increase as well. This may feel better as a declining percent may just seem awkward, even though that's the case."
},
{
"docid": "88575",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\""
},
{
"docid": "155797",
"title": "",
"text": "\"FSEMX has an annual expense ratio of 0.1% which is very low. What that means is that each month, the FSEMX will pay itself one-twelfth of 0.1% of the total value of all the shares owned by the shareholders in the mutual fund. If the fund has cash on hand from its trading activities or dividends collected from companies whose stock is owned by FSEMX or interest on bonds owned by FSEMX, the money comes out of that, but if there is no such pot (or the pot is not large enough), then the fund manager has the authority to sell some shares of the stocks held by FSEMX so that the employees can be paid, etc. If the total of cash generated by the trading and the dividend collection in a given year is (say) 3% of the share value of all the outstanding mutual fund, then only 2.9% will be paid out as dividend and capital gain distribution income to the share holders, the remaining 0.1% already having been paid to FSEMX management for operating expenses. It is important to keep in mind that expenses are always paid even if there are no profits, or even if there are losses that year so that no dividends or capital gains distributions are made. You don't see the expenses explicitly on any statement that you receive. If FSEMX sells shares of stocks that it holds to pay the expenses, this reduces the share value (NAV) of the mutual fund shares that you hold. So, if your mutual fund account \"\"lost\"\" 20% in value that year because the market was falling, and you got no dividend or capital gains distributions either, remember that only 19.9% of that loss can be blamed on the President or Congress or Wall Street or public-sector unions or your neighbor's refusal to ditch his old PC in favor of a new Mac, and the rest (0.1%) has gone to FSEMX to pay for fees you agreed to when you bought FSEMX shares. If you invest directly in FSEMX through Fidelity's web site, there is no sales charge, and you pay no expenses other than the 0.1% annual expense ratio. There is a fee for selling FSEMX shares after owning them only for a short time since the fund wants to discourage short-term investors. Whatever other fees finance.yahoo.com lists might be descriptive of the uses that FSEMX puts its expense ratio income to in its internal management, but are not of any importance to the prudent investor in FSEMX who will never encounter them or have to pay them.\""
},
{
"docid": "100593",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If it makes you feel any better, I now bank with a credit union. These WF assholes called me one day to tell me that someone had tried to withdraw $500 from my account and that I needed to sign up for a more secure account, of course with a $16 monthly charge. So I did what anybody would do... went to the bank and ask questions right? After I got there and mention the problem they told me that nothing was wrong with my account, that no transactions were attempted and even if they did attempt them and were canceled they would still show up but they didn't. Few minutes later I got another call from that guy and he was telling me that the problem was taken care of and that I didn't need to go to the bank. After that I was just suspicious. Basically what it came down to was that somebody was trying to set me up for accounts that I didn't ask for just so he can get promoted at my expense. They gave me a opportunity to report him but I didn't because I knew him personally, he was one of my \"\"friends\"\" and at the time he had two kids. I didn't want him to lose his job. I told him that what he did was completely fucked up and that you don't do that to people outside of WF. That same day I withdrew all my money. I still remember cutting the conversation short after WF tried to convince me all kinds of ways not to do that. I been with a Credit Union about 3 years now and so far so good.\""
},
{
"docid": "343594",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles. That's up to the editor. So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds. The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the \"\"shocking\"\" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF. Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes. They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day. If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time. (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.) It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that. Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume.\""
},
{
"docid": "241129",
"title": "",
"text": "\">The Brokaw Act is named after the central Wisconsin Village of Brokaw, which effectively went bankrupt after Starboard Value, a New York hedge fund, acquired the Wausau Paper company. The action preceded the closure of the company’s Brokaw mill in 2012, which left about 450 people unemployed. > > >\"\"Everyone lost their jobs,\"\" Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, said. \"\"The community of Brokaw became insolvent in large part because of upgrades to its infrastructure for the paper mill, and when it closed, they were left with the debt, and no major employer still left in town.\"\" > > >The Brokaw Act would give companies more time to react when hedge funds try to take them over. > > >The regulations would shorten the 10-day disclosure window for takeover attempts to four days. They would protect businesses from what Baldwin calls \"\"hedge fund wolf packs,\"\" by identifying funds that are working together to acquire a company. They would require derivative disclosure to prevent investors from **profiting by secretly voting against the company's interests.** holy crap. this is disturbing. how common is this kind of hedge fund behavior?\""
}
] |
6554 | Mutual fund value went down, shares went up, no action taken by me | [
{
"docid": "22469",
"title": "",
"text": "It is very likely that the fund paid out a dividend in the form of reinvested shares. This happens with many funds, especially as we come to the end of the year. Here's a simplified example of how it works. Assume you invested $1000 and bought 100 units at $10/unit. Ignoring the daily price fluctuations, if the fund paid out a 20% dividend, you would get $200 and the unit price would drop to $8/unit. Assuming you chose to reinvest your dividends, you would automatically purchase another $200 worth of units at the new price (so 25 more units). You would now have 125 units @ $8/unit = $1000 invested. In your example, notice that you now have more shares than you originally purchased, but that the price dropped significantly. Your market value is above what you originally invested, so there was probably also a bit of a price increase for the day. You should see the dividend transaction listed somewhere in your account. Just to confirm, I did a quick search on ICENX and found that they did indeed pay a dividend yesterday."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "234103",
"title": "",
"text": "Well on a levered fund it makes a lot of sense. If you lose 10% on day one and you are 2x levered you just lost 20%. Now on the next day if it corrects 10% you are still down because you've gone up 20% of a lesser amount then you went down by. Then even worse with oil or commodity funds they are forced to roll their futures since they don't want to take delivery, which allows them to be picked off by traders. This is referred to as levered ETF decay. If you do trade levered funds it should be on an intraday basis, and then you're dealing with serious transaction costs."
},
{
"docid": "246624",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\""
},
{
"docid": "97836",
"title": "",
"text": "Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs."
},
{
"docid": "61853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\""
},
{
"docid": "367313",
"title": "",
"text": "You sell when you think the stock is over valued, or you need the money, or you are going to need the money in the next 5 years. I buy and hold a lot. I bought IBM in 8th grade 1980. I still own it. I bought 3 share it from $190 and its now worth $5,000 do to dividend reinvestment and splits. That stock did nothing for a thirteen years except pay a dividend but then it went up by 1800% the next 20 and paid dividends. So I agree with other posters the whole pigs get slaughtered thing is silly and just makes fund managers more money. Think if you bought aapl at $8 and sold at $12. The thing went to 600 and split 7-1 and is back to $120. My parents made a ton holding Grainger for years and I have had good success with MMM and MSFT owning those for decades."
},
{
"docid": "596821",
"title": "",
"text": "looking over some historical data I cannot really a find a case where a stock went from $0.0005 to $1 it almost seem that once a stock crosses a minimum threshold the stock never goes back up. Is there any truth to that? That would be a 2000X (200,000%) increase in the per-share value which would be extraordinary. When looking at stock returns you have to look at percentage returns, not dollar returns. A gain of $1 would be minuscule for Berkshire-Hathaway stock but would be astronomical for this stock,. If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up? Not necessarily. The price of a stock is a measure of expected future performance, not necessarily past performance. If the earnings had been more that the market expected, then the price might go up, but if the market sees it as an anomaly that won't continue then there may not be enough buyers to move the stock up. looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? If you can afford to lose all $24 then no, it won't hurt. But I wouldn't expect that $24 to turn into anything higher than about $100. At best it might be an interesting learning experience."
},
{
"docid": "230997",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Back in the olden days, if you wanted to buy the S&P, you had to have a lot of money so you can buy the shares. Then somebody had the bright idea of making a fund that just buys the S&P, and then sells small pieces of it to investor without huge mountains of capital. Enter the ETFs. The guy running the ETF, of course, doesn't do it for free. He skims a little bit of money off the top. This is the \"\"fee\"\". The major S&P ETFs all have tiny fees, in the percents of a percent. If you're buying the index, you're probably looking at gains (or losses) to the tune of 5, 10, 20% - unless you're doing something really silly, you wouldn't even notice the fee. As often happens, when one guy starts doing something and making money, there will immediately be copycats. So now we have competing ETFs all providing the same service. You are technically a competitor as well, since you could compete with all these funds by just buying a basket of shares yourself, thereby running your own private fund for yourself. The reason this stuff even started was that people said, \"\"well why bother with mutual funds when they charge such huge fees and still don't beat the index anyway\"\", so the index ETFs are supposed to be a low cost alternative to mutual funds. Thus one thing ETFs compete on is fees: You can see how VOO has lower fees than SPY and IVV, in keeping with Vanguard's philosophy of minimal management (and management fees). Incidentally, if you buy the shares directly, you wouldn't charge yourself fees, but you would have to pay commissions on each stock and it would destroy you - another benefit of the ETFs. Moreover, these ETFs claim they track the index, but of course there is no real way to peg an asset to another. So they ensure tracking by keeping a carefully curated portfolio. Of course nobody is perfect, and there's tracking error. You can in theory compare the ETFs in this respect and buy the one with the least tracking error. However they all basically track very closely, again the error is fractions of the percent, if it is a legitimate concern in your books then you're not doing index investing right. The actual prices of each fund may vary, but the price hardly matters - the key metric is does it go up 20% when the index goes up 20%? And they all do. So what do you compare them on? Well, typically companies offer people perks to attract them to their own product. If you are a Fidelity customer, and you buy IVV, they will waive your commission if you hold it for a month. I believe Vanguard will also sell VOO for free. But for instance Fidelity will take commission from VOO trades and vice versa. So, this would be your main factor. Though, then again, you can just make an account on Robinhood and they're all commission free. A second factor is reliability of the operator. Frankly, I doubt any of these operators are at all untrustworthy, and you'd be buying your own broker's ETF anyway, and presumably you already went with the most trustworthy broker. Besides that, like I said, there's trivial matters like fees and tracking error, but you might as well just flip a coin. It doesn't really matter.\""
},
{
"docid": "339327",
"title": "",
"text": "Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors? You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion. Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales. Sales trade products for money. The creation of the product creates value. A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs. That's what profit is: added value. The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock. This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends. The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend). But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock. A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case. It operates more like a mutual fund than a company. As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend. If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors. But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time. There are other stocks that don't pay dividends. For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend. It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock. Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average. It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it. If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock. If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck. If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck. But it shouldn't matter to you. You wanted money for something. You received the money. The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value. It is completely unrelated to trading losses. Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group. Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value. If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up. To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves. Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other. But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them. The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth. It's a risky worth. Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses."
},
{
"docid": "322049",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this question is very nearly off-topic for this site, but I also believe that a basic understanding of the why the tax structure is what it is can help someone new to investing to understand their actual tax liability. The attempt at an answer I provide below is from a Canadian & US context, but should be similar to how this is viewed elsewhere in the world. First note that capital gains today are much more fluid in concept than even 100 years ago. When the personal income tax was first introduced [to pay for WWI], a capital gain was viewed as a very deliberate action; the permanent sale of property. Capital gains were not taxed at all initially [in Canada until 1971], under the view that income taxes would have been paid on income-earning assets all along [through interest, dividends, and rent], and therefore taxing capital gains would be a form of 'double-taxation'. This active, permanent sale was also viewed as an action that an investor would need to work for. Therefore it was seen as foolish to prevent investors from taking positive economic action [redistributing their capital in the most effective way], simply to avoid the tax. However today, because of favourable taxation on capital gains, many financial products attempt to package and sell capital gains to investors. For example, many Canadian mutual funds buy and sell investments to earn capital gains, and distribute those capital gains to the owners of the mutual fund. This is no longer an active action taken by the investor, it is simply a function of passive investing. The line between what is a dividend and what is a capital gain has been blurred by these and similar advanced financial products. To the casual investor, there is no practical difference between receiving dividends or capital gain distributions, except for the tax impact. The notional gain realized on the sale of property includes inflation. Consider a rental property bought in 1930 for $100,000, and sold in 1960 for $180,000, assuming inflation between 1930 and 1960 was 70%. In 1960 dollars, the property was effectively bought for 170k. This means the true gain after accounting for inflation is only $10k. But, the notional gain is $80k, meaning a tax on that capital gain would be almost entirely a tax on inflation. This is viewed by many as being unfair, as it does not actually represent true income. I will pause to note that any tax on any investment at all, taxes inflation; interest, for example, is taxed in full even though it can be almost entirely inflationary, depending on economic conditions. A tax on capital gains may restrict market liquidity. A key difference between capital gains and interest/rent/dividends, is that other forms of investment income are taxed annually. If you hold a bond, you get taxed on interest from that bond. You cannot gain value from a bond, deferring tax until the date it matures [at least in Canada, you are deemed to accrue bond interest annually, even if it is a 0 coupon bond]. However, what if interest rates have gone down, increasing the value of your bond, and you want to sell it to invest in a business? You may choose not to do this, to avoid tax on that capital gain. If it were taxed as much as regular income, you might be even more inclined to never sell any asset until you absolutely have to, thus restricting the flow of capital in the market. I will pause here again, to note that laws could be enacted to minimize capital gains tax, as long as the money is reinvested immediately, thus reducing this impact. Political inertia / lobbying from key interests has a significant impact on the tax structure for investments. The fact remains that the capital gains tax is most significantly an impact on those with accrued wealth. It would take significant public support to increase capital gain tax rates, for any political party to enact such laws. When you get right down to it, tax laws are complex, and hard to push in the public eye. The general public barely understands that their effective tax rate is far lower than their top marginal tax rate. Any tax increases at all are often viewed negatively, even by those who would never personally pay any of that tax due to lack of investment income. Therefore such changes are typically made quietly, and with some level of bi-partisan support. If you feel the capital gains tax rules are illogical, just add it to the pile of such tax laws that exist today."
},
{
"docid": "220486",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You cannot actually buy an index in the true sense of the word. An index is created and maintained by a company like Standard and Poor's who licenses the use of the index to firms like Vanguard. The S&P 500 is an example of an index. The S&P 500 \"\"index includes 500 leading companies\"\", many finical companies sell products which track to this index. The two most popular products which track to indexes are Mutual Funds (as called Index Funds and Index Mutual Funds) and Exchange Traded Funds (as called ETFs). Each Index Mutual Fund or ETF has an index which it tracks against, meaning they hold securities which make up a sample of the index (some indexes like bond indexes are very hard to hold everything that makes them up). Looking at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Mutual Fund (ticker VFINX) we see that it tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see the 500-ish stocks that it holds along with a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow for people buying and sell shares. If we look at the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (ticker VOO) we see that it also tracks against the S&P 500 index. Looking at its holdings we see they are very similar to the similar Index Mutual Fund. Other companies like T. Rowe Price have similar offering. Look at the T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 Fund (ticker PREIX) its holdings in stocks are the same as the similar Vanguard fund and like the Vanguard fund it also holds a small amount of bonds and cash to handle cash flow. The only real difference between different products which track against the same index is in the expense ratio (fees for managing the fund) and in the small differences in the execution of the funds. For the most part execution of the funds do not really matter to most people (it has a very small effect), what matters is the expense (the fees paid to own the fund). If we just compare the expense ratio of the Vanguard and T. Rowe Price funds we see (as of 27 Feb 2016) Vanguard has an expense ratio of 0.17% for it Index Mutual Fund and 0.05% for its ETF, while T. Rowe Price has an expense ratio of 0.27%. These are just the fees for the funds themselves, there are also account maintenance fees (which normally go down as the amount of money you have invested at a firm go up) and in the case of ETFs execution cost (cost to trade the shares along with the difference between the bid and ask on the shares). If you are just starting out I would say going with the Index Mutual Fund would easier and most likely would cost less over-all if you are buying a small amount of shares every month. When choosing a company look at the expense ratio on the funds and the account maintenance fees (along with the account minimals). Vanguard is well known for having low fees and they in fact were the first to offer Index Mutual Funds. For more info on the S&P 500 index see also this Investopedia entry on the S&P 500 index. Do not worry if this is all a bit confusing it is to most people (myself included) at first.\""
},
{
"docid": "196640",
"title": "",
"text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online."
},
{
"docid": "364735",
"title": "",
"text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads.."
},
{
"docid": "287600",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Market cap doesn't mean that much money went into the system. Money in equals money out over time, and is not directly tied to market cap, which can actually be lower if price drops far enough. These concepts are the same for all traded assets, such as stocks, bonds, and commodities. \"\"Market cap\"\" is simply the current price times the number of shares available in the market. So a $300 billion market cap does not mean $300 billion was paid to somebody to buy it all. Instead, what's happened is that some money went in at first, but much much less, and then price increased. Bitcoin is a little different in that \"\"money in\"\" for many innovators and early adopters was in the form of time spent and contributing to the network (what they call mining). 1 Now, as to the price jump, that's an effect of market forces. For many reasons, the market has clamored to buy bitcoin over the last year 2, but many already holding bitcoin weren't ready to sell. Supply and demand worked in a way that increased price. Supply low, demand high, price increases. This situation could easily reverse. Just as suddenly as the market wanted bitcoin it can decide it doesn't want bitcoin. Supply and demand would work in a way that would decrease price. Supply high, demand low, price decreases. This kind of massive market price movement in this short timeframe is exactly what traders mean by \"\"volatile\"\". It's actually not that unusual, it's just that most stocks and other assets that experience such gains don't get much media attention. Further, gains like this often reflect \"\"inflated\"\" prices, market \"\"euphoria\"\", and trading \"\"bubbles\"\". All of these terms essentially mean \"\"price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value\"\". If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the \"\"money in equals money out\"\" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left \"\"holding the bag\"\", meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a \"\"ponzi\"\" scheme or \"\"pyramid\"\" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to \"\"blockchain\"\". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the \"\"dot com bubble\"\", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding \"\".com\"\" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many \"\"penny stocks\"\" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new \"\"store of value.\"\" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown.\""
},
{
"docid": "574327",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, what structure does your index fund have? If it is an open-end mutual fund, there are no bid/ask spread as the structure of this security is that it is priced once a day and transactions are done with that price. If it is an exchange-traded fund, then the question becomes how well are authorized participants taking advantage of the spread to make the fund track the index well? This is where you have to get into the Creation and Redemption unit construct of the exchange-traded fund where there are \"\"in-kind\"\" transactions done to either create new shares of the fund or redeem out shares of the fund. In either case, you are making some serious assumptions about the structure of the fund that don't make sense given how these are built. Index funds have lower expense ratios and are thus cheaper than other mutual funds that may take on more costs. If you want suggested reading on this, look at the investing books of John C. Bogle who studied some of this rather extensively, in addition to being one of the first to create an index fund that became known as \"\"Bogle's Folly,\"\" where a couple of key ones would be \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor\"\" and \"\"Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor.\"\" In the case of an open-end fund, there has to be a portion of the fund in cash to handle transaction costs of running the fund as there are management fees to come from running the fund in addition to dividends from the stocks that have to be carefully re-invested and other matters that make this quite easy to note. Vanguard 500 Index Investor portfolio(VFINX) has .38% in cash as an example here where you could look at any open-end mutual fund's portfolio and notice that there may well be some in cash as part of how the fund is managed. It’s the Execution, Stupid would be one of a few articles that looks at the idea of \"\"tracking error\"\" or how well does an index fund actually track the index where it can be noted that in some cases, there can be a little bit of active management in the fund. Just as a minor side note, when I lived in the US I did invest in index funds and found them to be a good investment. I'd still recommend them though I'd argue that while some want to see these as really simple investments, there can be details that make them quite interesting to my mind. How is its price set then? The price is computed by taking the sum value of all the assets of the fund minus the liabilities and divided by the number of outstanding shares. The price of the assets would include the closing price on the stock rather than a bid or ask, similar pricing for bonds held by the fund, derivatives and cash equivalents. Similarly, the liabilities would be costs a fund has to pay that may not have been paid yet such as management fees, brokerage costs, etc. Is it a weighted average of all the underlying stock spreads, or does it stand on its own and stems from the usual supply & demand laws ? There isn't any spread used in determining the \"\"Net Asset Value\"\" for the fund. The fund prices are determined after the market is closed and so a closing price can be used for stocks. The liabilities could include the costs to run the fund as part of the accounting in the fund, that most items have to come down to either being an asset, something with a positive value, or a liability, something with a negative value. Something to consider also is the size of the fund. With over $7,000,000,000 in assets, a .01% amount is still $700,000 which is quite a large amount in some ways.\""
},
{
"docid": "464337",
"title": "",
"text": "The expense ratio is stated as an annual figure but is often broken down to be taken out periodically of the fund's assets. In traditional mutual funds, there will be a percent of assets in cash that can be nibbled to cover the expenses of running the fund and most deposits into the fund are done in cash. In an exchange-traded fund, new shares are often created through creation/redemption units which are baskets of securities that make things a bit different. In the case of an ETF, the dividends may be reduced by the expense ratio as the trading price follows the index usually. Expense ratios can vary as in some cases there may be initial waivers on new funds for a time period to allow them to build an asset base. There is also something to be said for economies of scale that allow a fund to have its expense ratio go down over time as it builds a larger asset base. These would be noted in the prospectus and annual reports of the fund to some degree. SPDR Annual Report on page 312 for the Russell 3000 ETF notes its expense ratio over the past 5 years being the following: 0.20% 0.20% 0.22% 0.20% 0.21% Thus, there is an example of some fluctuation if you want a real world example."
},
{
"docid": "561614",
"title": "",
"text": "Your question is rather direct, but I think there is some underlying issues that are worth addressing. One How to save and purchase ~$500 worth items This one is the easy one, since we confront it often enough. Never, ever, ever buy anything on credit. The only exception might be your first house, but that's it. Simply redirect the money you would spend in non necessities ('Pleasure and entertainment') to your big purchase fund (the PS4, in this case). When you get the target amount, simply purchase it. When you get your salary use it to pay for the monthly actual necessities (rent, groceries, etc) and go through the list. The money flow should be like this: Two How to evaluate if a purchase is appropriate It seems that you may be reluctant to spend a rather chunky amount of money on a single item. Let me try to assuage you. 'Expensive' is not defined by price alone, but by utility. To compare the price of items you should take into account their utility. Let's compare your prized PS4 to a soda can. Is a soda can expensive? It quenches your thirst and fills you with sugar. Tap water will take your thirst away, without damaging your health, and for a fraction of the price. So, yes, soda is ridiculously expensive, whenever water is available. Is a game console expensive? Sure. But it all boils down to how much do you end up using it. If you are sure you will end up playing for years to come, then it's probably good value for your money. An example of wrongly spent money on entertainment: My friends and I went to the cinema to see a movie without checking the reviews beforehand. It was so awful that it hurt, even with the discount price we got. Ultimately, we all ended up remembering that time and laughing about how wrong it went. So it was somehow, well spent, since I got a nice memory from that evening. A purchase is appropriate if you get your money's worth of utility/pleasure. Three Console and computer gaming, and commendation of the latter There are few arguments for buying a console instead of upgrading your current computer (if needed) except for playing console exclusives. It seems unlikely that a handful of exclusive games can justify purchasing a non upgradeable platform unless you can actually get many hours from said games. Previous arguments to prefer consoles instead of computers are that they work out of the box, capability to easily connect to the tv, controller support... have been superseded by now. Besides, pc games can usually be acquired for a lower price through frequent sales. More about personal finance and investment"
},
{
"docid": "478772",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, that's what it means. Also, it tells you that the share price went up by $0.39 yesterday, which was an increase of 1.43% from the previous day's price, and that the total value of all of Microsoft's shares is $232.18 billion (from which we can deduce that there are a bit less than 10 billion Microsoft shares in total)."
},
{
"docid": "535581",
"title": "",
"text": "When you invest in an ETF or mutual fund, you're not investing in stocks or bonds. You're buying shares of a company that invests in stocks or bonds. This level of indirection is what makes it so bond funds do not 'mature.' Bonds inside of ETFs or mutual funds do have a maturity date. When they mature, the fund manager uses the principal value that is returned to purchase another bond that meets the investment objectives of the fund. So the fund never matures, since it is always investing in more bonds when the old ones mature. Unit investment trusts made of bonds do have a maturity date as well, since the portfolio does not change once the UIT is issued. As the individual bonds in the portfolio mature, the principle value is returned to investors. So the overall maturity date is effectively the maturity date of the last bond in the trust. All of the statements quoted above are accurate in explaining why there is no guarantee of a return of principle when investing in bond funds (ETF or open-ended mutual fund). The bonds they hold do mature, but are replaced within the fund as needed. The investor will never see it happen unless they watch the holdings reports filed by the funds. The only way to have an assurance of the return of principle is to invest in individual bonds, or in unit trusts made up of bonds."
},
{
"docid": "209754",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The value of a stock ultimately is related to the valuation of a corporation. As part of the valuation, you can estimate the cash flows (discounted to present time) of the expected cash flows from owning a share. This stock value is the so-called \"\"fundamental\"\" value of a stock. What you are really asking is, how is the stock's market price and the fundamental value related? And by asking this, you have implicitly assumed they are not the same. The reason that the fundamental value and market price can diverge is that simply, most shareholders will not continue holding the stock for the lifespan of a company (indeed some companies have been around for centuries). This means that without dividends or buybacks or liquidations or mergers/acquisitions, a typical shareholder cannot reasonably expect to recoup their share of the company's equity. In this case, the chief price driver is the aggregate expectation of buyers and sellers in the marketplace, not fundamental evaluation of the company's balance sheet. Now obviously some expectations are based on fundamentals and expert opinions can differ, but even when all the experts agree roughly on the numbers, it may be that the market price is quite a ways away from their estimates. An interesting example is given in this survey of behavioral finance. It concerns Palm, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3Com. When Palm went public, its shares went for such a high price, they were significantly higher than 3Com's shares. This mispricing persisted for several weeks. Note that this facet of pricing is often given short shrift in standard explanations of the stock market. It seems despite decades of academic research (and Nobel prizes being handed out to behavioral economists), the knowledge has been slow to trickle down to laymen, although any observant person will realize something is amiss with the standard explanations. For example, before 2012, the last time Apple paid out dividends was 1995. Are we really to believe that people were pumping up Apple's stock price from 1995 to 2012 because they were waiting for dividends, or hoping for a merger or liquidation? It doesn't seem plausible to me, especially since after Apple announced dividends that year, Apple stock ended up taking a deep dive, despite Wall Street analysts stating the company was doing better than ever. That the stock price reflects expectations of the future cash flows from the stock is a thinly-disguised form of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and there's a lot of evidence contrary to the EMH (see references in the previously-linked survey). If you believe what happened in Apple's case was just a rational re-evaluation of Apple stock, then I think you must be a hard-core EMH advocate. Basically (and this is elaborated at length in the survey above), fundamentals and market pricing can become decoupled. This is because there are frictions in the marketplace making it difficult for people to take advantage of the mispricing. In some cases, this can go on for extended periods of time, possibly even years. Part of the friction is caused by strong beliefs by market participants which can often shift pressure to supply or demand. Two popular sayings on Wall Street are, \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right. You have to be right at the right time.\"\" and \"\"It doesn't matter if you're right, if the market disagrees with you.\"\" They suggest that you can make the right decision with where to put your money, but being \"\"right\"\" isn't what drives prices. The market does what it does, and it's subject to the whims of its participants.\""
}
] |
6562 | Cheapest way to “wire” money in an Australian bank account to a person in England, while I'm in Laos? | [
{
"docid": "135675",
"title": "",
"text": "You could use paypal to transfer money. You can pay with paypal and your UK contact could transfer the money to his bank account through paypal. I just received money this way from the US and paid 9 EUR for this. Receiving the funds is as quickly as clicking a button on the paypal site. Transfering it (without costs) took 1-3 days). It is by far the easiest way. If you are uncomfortable using paypal, the other option would be through your own bank account, where you would transfer using IBAN/SWIFT. The SWIFT bank account is usually the IBAN code plus a branch code. Often it is difficult to find the branch code, in that case you can use the IBAN+XXX. In the latter things might be delayed, but I actually haven't noticed the delay yet, since international transfer always seem to take between 1 and 10 days. The international transfering of money costs, except if it is within the EU region. The way to transfer money through Internet banking differs, from bank to bank. They keywords you need to look for are: SEPA, SWIFT, IBAN or international transfer."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "196365",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two (main) ways of transferring large sums of money between banks in such a situation. 1) Have your bank mail a cashier's check. They may or may not charge you for this (some banks charge up to $6, the bank I work at doesn't charge at all). You have to wait for the check to go through the mail, but it usually takes just a few days. 2) Wire the money. This could cost $50 or more in combined fees (usually around $30 to send and $20 to receive), but you get same day credit for the funds. The limits to online transfers are in place to protect you, so that if someone gets into your account the amount of damage they can do is limited. If you need those limits lifted temporarily, check with your bank about doing so - they may be willing to adjust them for you for a brief period (a day or two)."
},
{
"docid": "323389",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Ally Bank $0 - from their website (emphasis mine): To receive a wire transfer from a non-U.S. bank: Incoming wire transfers from a non-US bank are processed by our designated receiving bank, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. You'll need to provide the following information to the person or business sending the wire transfer to you: Receiving Bank: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ABA/Routing Number: 021000021 Address: 1 Chase Manhattan PLZ, New York, NY 10005 SWIFT Code or Bank Identification Code: CHASUS33 Beneficiary Account Number: 802904391 Beneficiary Name: List 'Ally Bank' since the wire is being processed by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Further Credit: Your Ally Bank Account Number and your name as it appears on your Ally Bank account. Note: We won't charge you to receive a wire transfer into your Ally account. https://www.ally.com/help/search.html?term=SWIFT&console=false&context=Help&domain=www.ally.com§ion=Help+%26+FAQs Alliant Credit Union $0 - from their website (emphasis mine): Direct international wire transfers International wire transfers are handled through our correspondent bank for processing. International wires can take up to 10 business days to be credited to the receiving institution. Funds should be wired to: Northern Trust ABA# 071000152 \"\"Note: US Banks do not use SWIFT codes. This ABA # is used in place of SWIFT codes for US Banks.\"\" 50 South La Salle Street, Chicago, IL 60603 For further credit: Alliant Credit Union Account Number 35101804 11545 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60666 For final credit: Member’s name and complete address (No P.O. Box) Member’s 14-digit account number Destination of funds (checking, savings or loan number) Incoming wire transfers: Wire transfers received Monday - Friday, 7:00am - 3:00pm, CT, will be credited to your account the same day. Wire transfers received after 3:00pm, CT, Monday - Friday and on the weekend will be credited the next business day. Fees: We do not charge a fee to receive incoming wire funds. However, the financial institution wiring the funds may charge for this service. http://www.alliantcreditunion.org/help/receiving-a-wire-transfer-to-your-alliant-account\""
},
{
"docid": "365804",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your best shot in terms of credit card \"\"compatibility\"\" would probably be a very large private European Bank, like Deutsche Bank, HSCB or the like issueing a MasterCard. In England it is quite difficult to get an account without being a resident, but I think HSBC offers a so called \"\"Passport\"\" account to non-residents with all the usual cards and benefits, even overdraft, but it's probably expensive. I think you underestimate how heterogeneous the banking world in Europe is. There are plenty of different local systems in each country. France has it's custom CB system and Germany has a system called GiroPay and a cashless system called GeldKarte (which no one really uses). Even if you have a Mastercard or Visa with pin from a European bank, there is no guarantee that it'll work everywhere reliably. I remember my German housemate having loads of trouble with his amazon.de Mastercard in England. In addition, you will most likely be charged for paying with your CC and ATM/Cashpoint withdrawals in any other country. Fees can range up to 3% for a transaction. So ideally you profile which European country you travel to the most and set up the account there. You should also look for cooperations between certain European banks. I remember Barclays and Deutsche Bank cooperating. On a side note: I'm still amazed by how backwards some banking systems are, e.g. the English. I've been using secure (pin/tan) online-banking in Germany for over 10 years. Transfers are quick, international transfers are free, as long as they are in Euro etc. Everything runs pretty smooth. Not so in England, you need to confirm online transactions over the phone (wtf?) and your only security is a pin and memorable information. Inter-bank transfers, if not set up online, cost up to 30 pounds, even though I could just go to the other bank, draw the cash there and pay it in to the account for free. International transfers start at 20 quid etc. I could hardly imagine, living in a cheque reliant system like the states anymore.\""
},
{
"docid": "264630",
"title": "",
"text": "When the wire is cancelled, your bank would pull cash out of your account. If you wired it elsewhere, your bank would cancel that wire and pull the cash from its destination. They only way to keep the money is to physically withdraw it from your account, at which point you're really fighting with your bank, not the scammer. Your bank will close the account and attempt to collect. If you used fake info to open the account they will do what they can to pursue you for fraud. In the end you are just as guilty as the scammer of breaking laws. The only way to scam a scammer is to lead them on and waste their time so they can't spend that time scamming others. This assumes you don't value your own time and you can keep them from being productive."
},
{
"docid": "428689",
"title": "",
"text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away."
},
{
"docid": "262496",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm not going to tackle the 2nd part of your question, as any number of the questions tagged with international-transfer should cover you on that. There's no way to transfer an ISA into an Australian tax-free savings account, so no need to worry about anything special there. Don't forget that the FX rates change quite a bit over time, and different methods have varying fees, so moving at the wrong time could easily cost you more than the missed interest! For the first part, it depends. One thing you should seriously consider right away is switching your ISA money into one paying a better rate. Check the best-buy tables online or in a paper, as you can get a lot better than 0.1% on a transfer in, even with current depressed rates. At least that way you'll earn more interest while you decide. As for when to transfer, that's something you'll have to calculate for yourself, based on your marginal tax rate, and your view of how the FX rates will shift. If you're a 40% taxpayer, then 2% in an ISA is worth the same to you as 3.3% gross. Don't forget to consider both your UK and Australian tax rates in the year you move, as most likely you'll have to pay the higher of the two. The westpac rate looks like you might struggle to beat a decent ISA over the course of a year, were you a higher rate tax payer. Oh, and don't forget that you'll likely loose the tax-free status of your ISA once you're an Australian tax resident, so you'll need to start paying tax on interest earnt in the ISA once you're out there."
},
{
"docid": "60952",
"title": "",
"text": "how could I transfer the money from UK There are multiple ways, walk into your Bank and ask them to wire transfer to the Bank Account in India. You would need the SWIFT BIC of Bank in India, Account Number, etc. Quite a few Banks [State bank of India, HDFC, ICICI etc] also offer remittance service. Visit their website for more details. does it cost the tax and how much Assuming your status is NRI [Non Resident], there is no tax implications of this in India."
},
{
"docid": "190537",
"title": "",
"text": "I had a similar situation a while ago, and here's what I learned: What are our options here to ensure that this company can't retry to take our money again via ACH? Close existing account and create a new one that has different account number? Yes. As a temporary solution keep ~$0 balance in the account so that their request for $840 can't be fulfilled? However, would our bank incur any fees because of insufficient funds each time the other company tries to charge us again? Bad idea. You may incur penalties for returned payment, or the bank may honor the payment and charge you overdraft fees. Provide to our bank the service termination notice that proves that we are not in business with the other company anymore and effectively block them. However, termination notice has only our signature Bank doesn't care. ACH withdrawal is akin to a check. The assumption is that the other side has entitlement. You can put stop payment once its processed and try to reverse it claiming fraud, but the end result will be #1: you'll end up getting a new account set up, while they try to recover the money. This is one of the reasons I'm reluctant allowing standing ACH authorizations any more. Generally, the American banking system is very much geared against the consumers, and in many ways is very retarded. In a more advanced countries (which is almost any other country than the US), the standing withdrawal authorization goes through your bank and can be revoked."
},
{
"docid": "301161",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone."
},
{
"docid": "152827",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally when you open a new account, you'd be given a checkbook (usually \"\"starter\"\" checks with no personal information, but some banks will later mail you a proper checkbook with your personal details) and a debit card (again, some banks will give you a \"\"starter\"\" one on the spot with a personalized following up in the mail, others will mail you). With the debit card you can use your bank's ATM to withdraw cash from your account, or use it for purchases (will debit, as the name says, directly from your account). You can also use it in other ATMs, but that will usually be with significant fees ($2-$5 per withdrawal to both the ATM owner and your bank). Checks - you can write a check to someone or use the check to go to the cashier in the bank and withdraw money (although usually they have special withdrawal slips for that in the branches, so you don't really need to waste your own checks). As to how to deposit money in your home country - you'll have to check with the bank you have an account at back at home. Usually, you can \"\"wire\"\" transfer money from your BoA account to the account back home, but that is usually comes at a fee of about $30-$50 per transfer (in the US, additional fees may be charged at the receiving end + currency conversion costs). You can also write yourself a check and deposit that check at the home country bank, but that depends on the specific bank whether it is possible, how much it would cost, and how long it would take for them to credit the money to your account after they take your check - may take weeks with personal checks.\""
},
{
"docid": "547737",
"title": "",
"text": "I doubt you're going to find anywhere that will give you free outgoing wires unless you're depositing a huge amount of money like $500K or more. An alternative would be to find a bank that offers everything else you want and use XETrade for very low cost online wires. I've used them in the past and can recommend their services. Most banks won't charge for incoming wires. I have accounts at E*Trade Bank that don't charge any fees and I can do everything online. You might want to check them out. E*Trade also offers global trading accounts which allow you to have accounts denominated in a few foreign currencies (EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD and HKD I think). I don't think there is a fee for moving money between the different currencies. If your goal is simply to diversify your money into different currencies, you could deposit money there instead of wiring it to other banks."
},
{
"docid": "158965",
"title": "",
"text": "If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately."
},
{
"docid": "436168",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason banks charge fees for wires, is because the Federal Reserve charges banks to send the wires. The Fed charges the banks a hefty fee, so the banks have to charge you a hefty fee to make up for it. Any time any business gives you a service for free, its because they think they can make more money off of some other service or product they are selling you. So the question becomes, How can I make myself valuable enough to a bank that they will waive my wire fees? The account you linked to is a good example of this: the monthly service charge, along with the $0.50 charge every time you use your debit card, would make up for the number of wires most people send."
},
{
"docid": "333966",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks."
},
{
"docid": "408628",
"title": "",
"text": "Account statements and the account information provided by your personal finance software should be coming from the same source, namely your bank's internal accounting records. So in theory one is just as good as the other. That being said, an account statement is a snapshot of your account on the date the statement was created, while synchronizations with your personal finance application is dynamically generated upon request (usually once a day or upon login). So what are the implications of this? Your account statement will not show transactions that may have taken place during that period but weren't posted until after the period ended (common with credit card transactions and checks). Instead they'd appear on the next statement. Because electronic account synchronizations are more frequent and not limited to a specific time period those transactions will show up shortly after they are posted. So it is far easier to keep track of your accounts electronically. Every personal finance software I've ever used supports manual entries so what I like to do is on a daily basis I manually enter any transaction which wasn't posted automatically. This usually only takes a few minutes each evening. Then when the transaction eventually shows up it's usually reconciled with my manually entered one automatically. Aside from finding (infrequent) bank errors this has the benefit of keeping me aware of how much I'm spending and how much I have left. I've also caught a number of cashier errors this way (noticing I was double-charged for an item while entering the receipt total) and its the best defense against fraud and identity theft I can think of. If you're looking at your accounts on a daily basis you're far more likely to notice an unusual transaction than any monitoring service."
},
{
"docid": "573250",
"title": "",
"text": "FYI - I'm not a lawyer I would not try to reverse the transfer. You need to create a paper trail as to what happened to this money and why. Be sure to document whatever you do. Reach out again Reach out to the company again and see if you can transfer the money back to their account. A wire transfer is $20 (usually), be sure to negotiate the company covering this, and every other fee. If you cannot reach them You could probably move the money to an escrow account at your new bank. The new bank will likely be able to advise you on the best way do this. You should probably also send a letter via certified mail (to ensure they received it) informing them you've done this and how to get in touch with you. By putting the money in an escrow account, you've proven that you haven't used it, and if the company wants it back its very obvious who's money it is. Sending the certified mail (someone must sign for it), will also create a paper trail that will help you if things get ugly. Finally don't spend it"
},
{
"docid": "445690",
"title": "",
"text": "US bank deposits over $10K only need to be reported to FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network- a bureau of the US Department of Treasury) if the deposits are made in cash or other money instruments where the source cannot be traced (money orders, traveler checks, etc). Regular checks and wires don't need to be reported because there is a clear bank trail of where the money came from. If your family member is giving you money personally (not from a business) from a bank account which is outside of the US, then you only need to report it if the amount is over $100K. Note, you would need to report that regardless of whether the money was deposited into your US bank account, or paid directly to your credit cards on your behalf, and there are stiff penalties if you play games to try to avoid reporting requirements. Neither deposit method would trigger any taxable income for the scenario you described."
},
{
"docid": "473605",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd certainly take a look at companies like UK Forex for transferring funds internationally. Even if you get free wire transfers, the currency rates banks offer can be bad. My experience was transferring from NatWest to an Australian bank - saved my self hundreds of pounds by not using their swift service."
},
{
"docid": "114872",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Technically, no. There is very little security in the US for bank drafts. With your bank account routing number it is very easy for people to draw funds without your authorization. Another thing people can do is buy stuff online with \"\"demand drafts\"\". Essentially it works like a credit card number where the create an electronic version of a check to purchase things. There is generally no password, PIN or signature requirement. That said, it is printed on every check you write so keeping it private isn't really practical. I'd make sure you trust anyone you give it to and watch your account statements closely. An important thing to know is that a routing number isn't a one-way deal. If you give out the number for someone to wire you money, they can just as easily draft on the account.\""
}
] |
6562 | Cheapest way to “wire” money in an Australian bank account to a person in England, while I'm in Laos? | [
{
"docid": "582414",
"title": "",
"text": "I successfully used Currency Fair a few times, they seem to cater for both Australia and the UK. If I remember correctly, you can set everything up via Internet. As they explain on their website, first you open an account with them, then you transfer AUD to an Australian bank account that they will give you, then you exchange and transfer the money to your friend on their web page. Usually they are cheaper than PayPal, especially if you have time to play with their exchange by marketplace functionality (not recommended if you just want to do the transfer)."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "114872",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Technically, no. There is very little security in the US for bank drafts. With your bank account routing number it is very easy for people to draw funds without your authorization. Another thing people can do is buy stuff online with \"\"demand drafts\"\". Essentially it works like a credit card number where the create an electronic version of a check to purchase things. There is generally no password, PIN or signature requirement. That said, it is printed on every check you write so keeping it private isn't really practical. I'd make sure you trust anyone you give it to and watch your account statements closely. An important thing to know is that a routing number isn't a one-way deal. If you give out the number for someone to wire you money, they can just as easily draft on the account.\""
},
{
"docid": "343882",
"title": "",
"text": "\"She is laundering money for criminals, either knowingly or unknowingly. There are lots of ways to make fraudulent money transfers like credit card fraud, direct debit fraud or online banking trojans. Unfortunately (for the criminals) banks usually reverse such transfers when informed by their customers and inform the police, so criminals can not directly wire these transfers into their personal accounts. That's where so-called \"\"mules\"\" come in. Mules are people who are hired by criminals to receive such dirty money and move it to a different account controlled by the criminals. When the transfer gets reversed, two things happen: Your \"\"friend\"\" is either one of these mules or in the business of recruiting mules.\""
},
{
"docid": "162653",
"title": "",
"text": "The easiest way is almost definitely through a Canadian bank. They can get your American credit history through Equifax. American Express in Canada will have no problem giving you one if you have an American Express in the US, as well. It would be easier if you went through TD Canada Trust since there's TD Bank NA in the States, or BMO since they own Harris Bank in the States. Oh, and doesn't Bank of America have Canadian branches? I'm in the process of doing the reverse (getting US card when I'm from Canada). I use XE Trade to transfer money -- the rates are great and it takes only 2 days for a transfer to go through if you use wire transfers ($25 charge) or online bill payment through the bank (free)."
},
{
"docid": "473605",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd certainly take a look at companies like UK Forex for transferring funds internationally. Even if you get free wire transfers, the currency rates banks offer can be bad. My experience was transferring from NatWest to an Australian bank - saved my self hundreds of pounds by not using their swift service."
},
{
"docid": "301161",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone."
},
{
"docid": "190537",
"title": "",
"text": "I had a similar situation a while ago, and here's what I learned: What are our options here to ensure that this company can't retry to take our money again via ACH? Close existing account and create a new one that has different account number? Yes. As a temporary solution keep ~$0 balance in the account so that their request for $840 can't be fulfilled? However, would our bank incur any fees because of insufficient funds each time the other company tries to charge us again? Bad idea. You may incur penalties for returned payment, or the bank may honor the payment and charge you overdraft fees. Provide to our bank the service termination notice that proves that we are not in business with the other company anymore and effectively block them. However, termination notice has only our signature Bank doesn't care. ACH withdrawal is akin to a check. The assumption is that the other side has entitlement. You can put stop payment once its processed and try to reverse it claiming fraud, but the end result will be #1: you'll end up getting a new account set up, while they try to recover the money. This is one of the reasons I'm reluctant allowing standing ACH authorizations any more. Generally, the American banking system is very much geared against the consumers, and in many ways is very retarded. In a more advanced countries (which is almost any other country than the US), the standing withdrawal authorization goes through your bank and can be revoked."
},
{
"docid": "463130",
"title": "",
"text": "I would strongly advise that you do not use Western Union or any other wire transfer service for any money transfer, unless you personally know and trust the recipient of your funds, and the method by which you can communicate the details of the transaction. As was mentioned, wire transfers are irreversible and very difficult to trace to ensure the actual recipient got the funds. In some countries and situations, literally anyone can show up at any Western Union location, correctly recite the details of the transaction (which is proof enough they are the intended recipient) and receive the cash. If the vendor accepts PayPal, then simply set up a PayPal account, linked to your credit card, and pay the vendor that way. This can be done 100% online, assuming you have a valid card."
},
{
"docid": "43217",
"title": "",
"text": "There's no requirement of US citizenship to open a bank account in the US. Any person, citizen or not, can do that. I don't know where this assumption of yours come from, but it is false. So the easiest solution is to open a bank account for your nephew next time he visits the US and get him an ATM card from that account. You can then deposit money to that account as much as you want (beware of the gift tax consequences). If he doesn't want to travel to the US and cannot open a US bank account remotely from Russia (which is probably the case), then follow the @BrenBarn's suggestion: have him open a bank account in Russia and just wire money there. Having a foreigner tapping freely into your own personal bank account may cause legal issues both with regards to gift tax and money laundering provisions that require you to certify that the money on the account is yours only. Also, check if there's an issue for a Russian resident to have control over foreign accounts (there's definitely such an issue for a US resident, Russians are generally not far behind when it comes to government oppression)."
},
{
"docid": "163685",
"title": "",
"text": "For the first part of your question, I think the answer is a combination of three things: (1) Bigger companies have leverage to negotiate better deals due to volume. (2) Some of these companies are also taking bookings from outside the US for people traveling to the US (either directly or through affiliates). This means that they also have income in other currencies, so they may not actually be making as many wire transfers as you think. They simply keep a bank account in Europe, for example, in Euros to receive and send money in the Eurozone as needed. They balance the exchange on their books internally in this case, without actually sending funds through the international banking system. Similarly in other parts of the world. (3) These companies are not going to make a wire transfer for every transaction, in any case. They are going to transfer big sums of money to an account abroad to balance things on a longer-term basis (weekly, month, etc.) Then they will make individual payments to service providers out of the overseas account in between these larger, international transfers. For the second part of your question, I think there's probably no way for a new business to get the advantages of scale unless you've got significant capital backing your endeavor that would make it plausible that you'll be transferring in scale. I don't see any reason in principle that the new company could not establish bank accounts abroad and try to execute the plan outlined in #2 above except that it would require some set-up costs to do the proper paperwork in each country, probably to travel, and to initially fund the various accounts."
},
{
"docid": "41383",
"title": "",
"text": "The money is transferred through an electronic funds transfer, which is an umbrella term that encompasses wire transfers, direct debits, etc. The application form for Key Trade Bank (the only place I can find that uses that exact phrasing) lists a SWIFT number. This usually indicates that the transfer of funds is done through an international wire transfer. In the most basic sense, the process works like this: Key Trade Bank uses the SWIFT number to notify your current bank of the transfer. Your bank instructs the settlement bank, e.g. the central bank of your country, where your bank is located, to transfer funds to Key Trade. If Key Trade is in another country from your current country, your central bank will send money to the central bank where Key Trade is located, which will in turn send the money to Key Trade. Otherwise, your central bank deposits the money into the account that Key Trade also has with them, and the transfer is complete."
},
{
"docid": "149339",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this is really two questions: Dumbcoder has already answered part 1 in a comment - either just wire the money from the Japanese bank account to the UK bank account (either bank should be able to help you with the details of this) or if your Japanse bank also has a UK operation you may be able to do it within the same bank. As for part 2 - if you are looking for a mortgage then many high street mortgage providers (banks) will want proof of your savings up front. They may or may not accept Japanese bank statements; all you can do is ask the question. You would probably also need to ask your Japanese bank if they can provide statements in English. If you find that most or all of the high street banks will not accept this as proof of assets, or that they demand that the money is in the UK for a period of time first, then you might have more luck with a mortgage broker who can deal with the specialist requirement. If you do find a mortgage provider who is happy to accept Japanese bank statements as proof of assets then you would simply need to wire the money direct from your bank in Japan to the UK bank of your solicitor at or shortly before the point when the deposit becomes due (usually at exchange of contracts)."
},
{
"docid": "89457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the answer depends very much on where you are. I believe the other answer covers north america. On contrast, in (continental) Europe, giving the account and bank number (IBAN and BIC) is a (the most) common way to enable someone to send money to you. E.g. in Germany, you need much more than account number and bank number to withdraw money: To \"\"push\"\" money to another account (wire transfer from your account to someone who gave you the other account + bank numbers), you either have to hand-sign a certain form, or (online) certain credentials (e.g. login & password / PIN + TAN) are needed. I.e. for defrauding you, the other would need to get your online credentials (for mTAN also your mobile phone, for chipTAN a TAN generator of your bank [easy] and your bank card, for (i)TAN your TAN list) or fake your signature. There are also ways to allow someone to pull money from your account, see e.g. direct debit For that you sign that the other side is allowed to withdraw specified amounts of money (at specified dates). This is either between you and the other (i.e. your bank cannot check and doesn't reject withdrawals that are not authorized). However, the other side needs to have signed a contract with their bank that they'll only try to withdraw money they're entitled to. or you sign such a thing with your bank (then they do know whether the other side is allowed to withdraw money, and you can tell the bank that you won't accept any further withdrawals from XYZ). In the first case, the withdrawal technically still needs your approval. In order not to create a huge risk of fraud, the rejecting here is really easy: If you tell your bank that you reject the payment, The practical rule is that the payment is approved if you didn't reject within the first 6 weeks after the bank sent the account statement. In other words, until 4 1/2 months after the withdrawal (in case you have a bank that does only quarterly account statements), the one to get the money cannot be really sure that he actually has the money. I think (but I'm not completely sure, maybe someone else can comment/edit) that these two possibilities are also what is used with debit card payments (EC/Maestro card - these are much more common here than real credit card payments). -- end of Germany specific example --\""
},
{
"docid": "379065",
"title": "",
"text": "There are multiple ways in which you can get money to India; - Citi Bank / HDFC Bank offere similar services [and the credit account can be ICICI Bank] - Ask for a Wire/SWIFT transfer, there would be some changes [in the range of USD 30] - Ask for a company check, it would take around 30 days for you to encash in into your bank account in India."
},
{
"docid": "333966",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you'll find some sound answers here: Money Creation in the Modern Economy by the Bank of England Where does money come from? In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks."
},
{
"docid": "152027",
"title": "",
"text": "It seems that you're complicating things quite a bit. Why would you not create a business entity, open one or more bank accounts for it, and then have the money wired into those accounts? If you plan on being a company then set up the appropriate structure for it. In the U.S., you can form an S-corporation or an LLC and choose pass-through taxation so that all you pay is income tax on what you receive from the business as personal income. The business itself would not have tax liability in such a case. Co-mingling your personal banking with that of your business could create real tax headaches for you if you aren't careful, so it's not worth the trouble or risk."
},
{
"docid": "271116",
"title": "",
"text": "Absolute scam. Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it. I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this: In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared. The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events. You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be. It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts. So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!"
},
{
"docid": "445690",
"title": "",
"text": "US bank deposits over $10K only need to be reported to FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network- a bureau of the US Department of Treasury) if the deposits are made in cash or other money instruments where the source cannot be traced (money orders, traveler checks, etc). Regular checks and wires don't need to be reported because there is a clear bank trail of where the money came from. If your family member is giving you money personally (not from a business) from a bank account which is outside of the US, then you only need to report it if the amount is over $100K. Note, you would need to report that regardless of whether the money was deposited into your US bank account, or paid directly to your credit cards on your behalf, and there are stiff penalties if you play games to try to avoid reporting requirements. Neither deposit method would trigger any taxable income for the scenario you described."
},
{
"docid": "36880",
"title": "",
"text": "Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’."
},
{
"docid": "280769",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm guessing you're in the US? If so, yes, you can be prosecuted, but it's unlikely. Fraud crimes are up to a prosecutor to pursue, there are a lot of fraud cases and bystanders take low priority, I'm assuming you're passively complicit, not actively. If this is the case it's best to work with the bank to get your situation cleaned up and move on. These days, most banks have dealt with wire fraud at least once, and they're familiar with cashiers check fraud. A fair warning, the bank will report you, if they think you're involved, so if you are not a complete bystander, you may want to lawyer up. So hopefully you didn't try to spend any of the fraudulent money and hopefully you have proof of a third party, because they will want a connection to that person (name/number/other) to file their report."
}
] |
6562 | Cheapest way to “wire” money in an Australian bank account to a person in England, while I'm in Laos? | [
{
"docid": "561344",
"title": "",
"text": "I've used OFX quite a lot for international transfers. They are much faster than a normal international transfer from your bank. Instead it ends up being a local transfer on either end which just works a heck of a lot quicker. They also claim lower exchange rates. In the past we have compared and sometimes found them lower and sometimes found them a little higher. Their fees certainly are lower though. Only thing is I think there was a lag setting up the account initially (they need to contact you by phone), so if you're in a hurry this may be problematic. And yes, you will need internet banking to do this. Since the question is specifically about how to do this in the cheapest way possible, I think the answer is to use internet banking."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "45094",
"title": "",
"text": "The typical scam is that they overpay you - 'accidentially', or for some obscure reason they claim, and they ask you to wire the extra money either back or to someone else. Because you wire it, that money is gone for sure. Then they undo the original transaction (or it turns out it was fake anyway), and you end up with a loss. Maybe he claims that he wants to buy some more stuff, and the fees are high, so he sends you all the payments in one amount, and you pay the other sellers from it, something like that. There are honest nigerians though, actually most of them. Either way, the real problem is that the original payment is fake. Whichever way it comes to you, you need to make sure that it cannot be reversed or declared invalid after you think you have it. Wire transfer is the only way I know that is not reversible. Bank transfers are reversible; don't think you have it just because it arrives in your bank account. Talk to your bank about what all can happen. If you make the deal, when you send the bike, think about insuring it (and make him pay for that too). That way, you are out of any loss risk."
},
{
"docid": "282419",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Most banks offer prepaid cards nowadays that should fit the bill here. I would recommend first checking with your bank to see what they offer, as that's probably the easiest, and perhaps cheapest, option. My bank, for example, has an entirely fee-free prepaid card that, while marketed towards teens, is entirely applicable for this case. Other banks seem to offer similar products; some of them have more or less fees, but almost all that I've seen are better than the commercial products you'd find in a grocery store. As an example (and I don't know anything about it so I don't specifically recommend this, just exemplifying what I mean): Note that the fees vary, some should be able to be used without ever incurring fees and some have fees you won't avoid. Most seem to have the concept of \"\"sponsor\"\", or NFCU inverts it (you are the cardholder, your dad would be the \"\"companion cardholder\"\"), but in either way it means you can load money (and generally would be the sole money loader) and your dad could then spend it. If your bank doesn't offer what you want, you may want to consider getting an account with a provider that offers what you're looking for, so to make deposits easier. Most of these allow deposits from other sources than checking accounts with that bank, but in many cases you may incur a fee or take longer for the money to clear.\""
},
{
"docid": "428689",
"title": "",
"text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away."
},
{
"docid": "122986",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your bank uses ClearXchange, not you. It is not a website where you open an account, like many others, but an inter-bank transfer system based on email addresses, kind of like free wire transfers between everyone. You don't have to set anything up, just accept the payment, and the money appears in your account (assuming the client used the email address your bank has on file for you). However, if you still don't want it, you can just ignore it. There is a timeout when his transaction gets auto-cancelled, and he gets his money back. Here is an example text from the 'fine print' (my highlighting): \"\"[...]We will continue our attempts by sending a second notice of a transfer to the recipient, and providing the recipient a period of nine (9) succeeding Business Days to register in the Service, or the person-to-person payment service of clearXchange, Zelle or a Network Bank. At the end of this period, if the recipient still has not registered, the transfer request will be Cancelled. The sender may cancel the transfer at any time during this ten (10) day period if the recipient is not registered at the time of cancellation.[...]\"\" (https://chaseonline.chase.com/Public/Misc/LAContent.aspx?agreementKey=chasenet_la)\""
},
{
"docid": "436168",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason banks charge fees for wires, is because the Federal Reserve charges banks to send the wires. The Fed charges the banks a hefty fee, so the banks have to charge you a hefty fee to make up for it. Any time any business gives you a service for free, its because they think they can make more money off of some other service or product they are selling you. So the question becomes, How can I make myself valuable enough to a bank that they will waive my wire fees? The account you linked to is a good example of this: the monthly service charge, along with the $0.50 charge every time you use your debit card, would make up for the number of wires most people send."
},
{
"docid": "301161",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone."
},
{
"docid": "308125",
"title": "",
"text": "You didn't specify where in the world you account is - ScotiaBank operates in many countries. However, for large amounts where there is a currency conversion involved, you are almost guaranteed to be better off going to a specialist currency broker or payments firm, rather than using a direct method with your bank (such as a wire transfer). Based on my assumption that your account is in Canada, one provider who I have personally used with success in transferwise, but the best place to compare where is the best venue for you is https://www.fxcompared.com In the off chance that this is an account with Scotiabank in the United States, any domestic payment method such as a domestic wire transfer should do the job perfectly well. The fees don't matter for larger amounts as they are a single fee versus a percentage fee like you see with currency conversions."
},
{
"docid": "547737",
"title": "",
"text": "I doubt you're going to find anywhere that will give you free outgoing wires unless you're depositing a huge amount of money like $500K or more. An alternative would be to find a bank that offers everything else you want and use XETrade for very low cost online wires. I've used them in the past and can recommend their services. Most banks won't charge for incoming wires. I have accounts at E*Trade Bank that don't charge any fees and I can do everything online. You might want to check them out. E*Trade also offers global trading accounts which allow you to have accounts denominated in a few foreign currencies (EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD and HKD I think). I don't think there is a fee for moving money between the different currencies. If your goal is simply to diversify your money into different currencies, you could deposit money there instead of wiring it to other banks."
},
{
"docid": "352649",
"title": "",
"text": "I may be moving to Switzerland soon and would like to know if there's a similar system to move money between a Swiss bank account and a U.S bank account. There is no easy way. The most common method is International Wire or SWIFT. These kinds of transfer are generally charged in the range of USD 20 to USD 50 per transfer. It generally takes 2 to 5 days to move the money. Some Banks have not yet given the facility to initiate a International Wire from Internet banking platforms. One has to physically walk-in. So if this is going to be frequent, make sure both your banks offer this. As the volume between US and Switzerland is less, there may not be any dedicated remittance service providers [these are generally low cost]."
},
{
"docid": "29140",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you still have affairs in Spain or you plan to visit regularly, I would advise against closing your account there unless it is expensive. I still have a bank account in the Netherlands and it simplifies at lot of things to have it. I would recommend you take enough money to get you going in the US with you but leave the rest in your bank account in Spain. Once you have opened a bank account in the US, use a foreign exchange transfer service like ofx, XE trade or Transferwise to transfer the money to yourself. In general, foreign exchange transfer services are the most cost effective way to transfer money internationally (much better than your own bank, Pay Pal, Western Union, wire transfers, etc). They are \"\"fast\"\" in that it can take less than a week to transfer money, but other methods are faster if time is of the essence.\""
},
{
"docid": "114872",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Technically, no. There is very little security in the US for bank drafts. With your bank account routing number it is very easy for people to draw funds without your authorization. Another thing people can do is buy stuff online with \"\"demand drafts\"\". Essentially it works like a credit card number where the create an electronic version of a check to purchase things. There is generally no password, PIN or signature requirement. That said, it is printed on every check you write so keeping it private isn't really practical. I'd make sure you trust anyone you give it to and watch your account statements closely. An important thing to know is that a routing number isn't a one-way deal. If you give out the number for someone to wire you money, they can just as easily draft on the account.\""
},
{
"docid": "158965",
"title": "",
"text": "If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. I have my back account (i.e. chequing account) and VISA account at/from the same bank (which, in my case, is the Royal Bank of Canada). I asked my bank to set up an automatic transfer, so that they automatically pay off my whole VISA balance every month, on time, by taking the money from my bank account. In that way I am never late paying the VISA so I never pay interest charges. IOW I use the VISA like a debit card; the difference is that it's accepted at some places where a debit card isn't (e.g. online, and for car rentals), and that the money is deducted from my bank account at the end of the month instead of immediately."
},
{
"docid": "122182",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To answer length validity and security implications of draft checks issued and negotiated within the United States, I am heavily addressing the common erroneous assumptions of where the funds sit while they're \"\"in\"\" a draft check and how to get them out. Tl;Dr The existing answers are incomplete and in some ways dangerously misleading. Jerry can still be potentially defrauded by Tom, and even if the check is legitimately drawn and negotiable, Jerry may still experience delayed access to the funds. The funds sit in an account held by the issuing bank. As long as the bank has sufficient funds, the check does. However, there are significantly more factors that go into whether a check will be returned unpaid (\"\"bounce\"\"). If I hand you $5000 in cash, will you give me $5000 in cash? Probably, and you'd probably be pretty safe. How about I give you a $5000 draft check, will you give me $5000 in cash without doing anything except looking at it to verify the check? I hope not (Cash America sure wouldn't) but people sell expensive goods with the \"\"same as cash\"\" attitude. Remember: The only non-cash form of payment which cannot somehow be held, reversed or returned unpaid in the U.S. without consent of the receiving party is a payment order (a.k.a wire transfer)! The draft check is \"\"as good as cash\"\" in the sense that the money for a draft check is withdrawn from your account before the check is negotiated (deposited). This does NOT mean that a draft check will not bounce, so Jerry is NOT as secure in handing the goods to Tom as if Tom had handed him cash, as it is still a check. Jerry's bank will not receive the funds for Tom's draft check for an average 3 to 5 business days, same as a personal check. Jerry will probably have access to the first $5000 within two business days... provided that he deposits the draft check in person at his bank's branch or in a bank-owned ATM. In the United States, Regulation CC governs funds availability. Regarding official, draft, or tellers checks: \"\"If the customer desires next-day availability of funds from these checks, [your bank] may require use of a special deposit slip.\"\" Mobile deposit availability in the U.S. is NOT regulated in this way and will likely be subject to a longer hold on more, if not all, of the check! Draft checks, don't, as a habit, \"\"bounce\"\" in the colloquial sense of \"\"returned for insufficient funds.\"\" This is because they are prepaid and drawn upon a financial institution's account. Banks are insolvent far less frequently than other businesses or individuals. Draft checks, tellers checks, official checks, bank checks, etc CAN, however, be returned unpaid if one of the following is true: As an aside: an institution is not obligated to honor a stale dated check, but may do so at its discretion. If you have a personal check outstanding for over 6 months, it may still clear and potentially overdraw your account. In this case, contact your bank ASAP to process a reversal. The depositing bank mis-scans the check and the issuing bank refuses the resulting data. I have seen systems mis-read which data field is which, or its contents. Also, there is the possibility the image if the check will be illegible to the issuing bank. The draft check has been cancelled (stop paid). This can happen if: a) The check was fraudulently bought from the issuing bank using Tom's account b) Tom has completed an indemnification agreement that the check was lost or otherwise not used for its intended purpose, without fraud having occurred against Tom c) The draft check is escheated (paid to the state as unclaimed property). This case is a subset of case 1, but will lead to a different return reason stamped on the (image replacement document of) the check. The draft check was never any good in the first place. Because of the perception that draft checks are as good as cash (they're not but are a lot better than personal checks), forgery and attempted fraud is shockingly common. These aren't actually underwritten by a real bank, even if they appear to be. The only money \"\"in\"\" them is what the fraudster can get out of you. Jerry did not properly endorse the check before presenting it for deposit or otherwise negotiating it. In my time in banking, I most commonly saw cases 3 and 4. Unlike most counterfeit cash, case 3 will fool Jerry and Jerry's teller. Tom gets an immediate payout (a car, a wire transfer, a payday loan, etc) and Jerry's bank doesn't know the check isn't valid until they call the alleged issuing bank to verify its negotiability, or in the case of smaller checks into lower-risk accounts, it is simply returned unpaid as fraudulently drawn. To conclude: Call the alleged issuing bank's verification line before handing over the goods, always properly endorse your deposits, and address what happens if one does not receive or collect on prompt payment in your contracts.\""
},
{
"docid": "199808",
"title": "",
"text": "If your counterparty sent money to a correspondent account at another bank, then it is completely up to the other bank what to do with the money. If the wire transfer completed, then the account is not closed. If I were your business partner, I would immediately contact the bank to which the transfer was made and explain the situation and hopefully they will transfer the money back. Whenever a wire transfer is made, the recipients name, address, and account number are included. If that name, address and account do not belong to you, then you have a problem because you have no legal right to the money in a court of law. For this reason, you should be avoid any situation where you are wiring money to anyone except the intended recipient."
},
{
"docid": "445690",
"title": "",
"text": "US bank deposits over $10K only need to be reported to FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network- a bureau of the US Department of Treasury) if the deposits are made in cash or other money instruments where the source cannot be traced (money orders, traveler checks, etc). Regular checks and wires don't need to be reported because there is a clear bank trail of where the money came from. If your family member is giving you money personally (not from a business) from a bank account which is outside of the US, then you only need to report it if the amount is over $100K. Note, you would need to report that regardless of whether the money was deposited into your US bank account, or paid directly to your credit cards on your behalf, and there are stiff penalties if you play games to try to avoid reporting requirements. Neither deposit method would trigger any taxable income for the scenario you described."
},
{
"docid": "553133",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A couple of thoughts and experiences (Germany/Italy): First of all, I recommend talking to the Belgian bank (and possibly to a Dutch bank of your choice). I have similar conditions for my German bank accounts. But even though they talk about it as salary account (\"\"Gehaltskonto\"\") all they really ask for is a monthly inflow of more than xxxx € - which can be satisfied with an automatic direct transfer (I have some money automatically circulating for this reason which \"\"earns\"\" about 4% p.a. by saving fees). In that case it may be a feasible way to have a Belgian and a Dutch bank account and set up some money circulation. Experiences working in Italy (some years ago, SEPA payments were kind of new and the debits weren't implemented then): My guess with your service providers is that they are allowed to offer you contracts that are bound to rather arbitrary payment conditions. After all, you probably can also get a prepaid phone or a contract with a bill that you can then pay by wire transfer - however, AFAIK they are allowed to offer discounts/ask fees for different payment methods. Just like there is no law that forces the store around your corner to accept credit cards or even large EUR denominations as long as they tell you so beforehand. AFAIK, there is EU regulation saying your bank isn't allowed to charge you more for wire transger to foreign country within the SEPA zone than a national wire transfer.\""
},
{
"docid": "379065",
"title": "",
"text": "There are multiple ways in which you can get money to India; - Citi Bank / HDFC Bank offere similar services [and the credit account can be ICICI Bank] - Ask for a Wire/SWIFT transfer, there would be some changes [in the range of USD 30] - Ask for a company check, it would take around 30 days for you to encash in into your bank account in India."
},
{
"docid": "560622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\""
},
{
"docid": "163685",
"title": "",
"text": "For the first part of your question, I think the answer is a combination of three things: (1) Bigger companies have leverage to negotiate better deals due to volume. (2) Some of these companies are also taking bookings from outside the US for people traveling to the US (either directly or through affiliates). This means that they also have income in other currencies, so they may not actually be making as many wire transfers as you think. They simply keep a bank account in Europe, for example, in Euros to receive and send money in the Eurozone as needed. They balance the exchange on their books internally in this case, without actually sending funds through the international banking system. Similarly in other parts of the world. (3) These companies are not going to make a wire transfer for every transaction, in any case. They are going to transfer big sums of money to an account abroad to balance things on a longer-term basis (weekly, month, etc.) Then they will make individual payments to service providers out of the overseas account in between these larger, international transfers. For the second part of your question, I think there's probably no way for a new business to get the advantages of scale unless you've got significant capital backing your endeavor that would make it plausible that you'll be transferring in scale. I don't see any reason in principle that the new company could not establish bank accounts abroad and try to execute the plan outlined in #2 above except that it would require some set-up costs to do the proper paperwork in each country, probably to travel, and to initially fund the various accounts."
}
] |
6562 | Cheapest way to “wire” money in an Australian bank account to a person in England, while I'm in Laos? | [
{
"docid": "501157",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I've been doing a bunch of Googling and reading since I first posed this question on travel.SE and I've found an article on a site called \"\"thefinancebuff.com\"\" with a very good comparison of costs as of September 2013: Get the Best Exchange Rate: Bank Wire, Xoom, XE Trade, Western Union, USForex, CurrencyFair by Harry Sit It compares the following methods: Their examples are for sending US$10,000 from the US to Canada and converting to Canadian dollars. CurrencyFair worked out the cheapest.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "297465",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Is there any way for me to get my money bank? It would be a long drawn process. You would have to file a fraud complaint, they should be able to catch the imposter and / or get a freeze on the account you did wire transfer on [even courts would be involved in process] ... could take lot of time and money. Depending on the amount it may or may not be worth it. If so, should I talk to my bank Your Bank will not take any liability. From their point of view, you deposited a check, they sent it get cleared and reversed the transaction moment they realized it was fraud. the \"\"vendor's\"\" bank You could talk to Vendor Bank. However as you have no relationship with them, they may or may not co-operate. If its a large institution they may do their own internal investigations. If you act sooner, they maybe able to place a hold on the account. Often this is a parking account and the funds are moved elsewhere. They will not be able to refund the funds unless the legal system / process is involved. bank that the fraudulent check came from Depending on how the check was made ... the Bank can easily claim that someone printed something with their Bank's name on it and they are not responsible for it. If there are large cases, the Bank may to contain reputational damage may lodge a complaint with Police and put out some advertisement.\""
},
{
"docid": "226568",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is unusual to need a consultant to open a bank account for you, and I would also be concerned that perhaps the consultant could take the money and do nothing, or continue to demand various sums of money for \"\"expenses\"\" like permits, licenses, identity check, etc. until you give up. Some of the more accepted ways to open a bank account are: A: Call up an established bank and follow their instructions to open a personal account . Make sure you are calling on a real bank, one that has been around a while. Hints: has permanent locations, in the local phone book, and has shares traded on a national stock exchange. Call the bank directly, don't use a number given to you by a 3rd party consultant, as it may be a trick... Discuss on the phone and find out if you can open an account by mail or if you need to visit in person. B: Create a company or branch office in the foreign country, assuming this is for business or investing. and open an account by appointing someone (like a lawyer or accountant or similar professional) in the foreign country to represent the company to open an account in person. If you are a US citizen, you will want to ask your CPA/accountant/tax lawyer about the TD F 90-22.1 Foreign Account Bank Report form, and the FATCA Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. There can be very large fines for not making the required reports. The requirements to open a bank account have become more strict in many countries, so don't be surprised if they will not open an account for a foreigner with no local address, if that is your situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "352649",
"title": "",
"text": "I may be moving to Switzerland soon and would like to know if there's a similar system to move money between a Swiss bank account and a U.S bank account. There is no easy way. The most common method is International Wire or SWIFT. These kinds of transfer are generally charged in the range of USD 20 to USD 50 per transfer. It generally takes 2 to 5 days to move the money. Some Banks have not yet given the facility to initiate a International Wire from Internet banking platforms. One has to physically walk-in. So if this is going to be frequent, make sure both your banks offer this. As the volume between US and Switzerland is less, there may not be any dedicated remittance service providers [these are generally low cost]."
},
{
"docid": "162653",
"title": "",
"text": "The easiest way is almost definitely through a Canadian bank. They can get your American credit history through Equifax. American Express in Canada will have no problem giving you one if you have an American Express in the US, as well. It would be easier if you went through TD Canada Trust since there's TD Bank NA in the States, or BMO since they own Harris Bank in the States. Oh, and doesn't Bank of America have Canadian branches? I'm in the process of doing the reverse (getting US card when I'm from Canada). I use XE Trade to transfer money -- the rates are great and it takes only 2 days for a transfer to go through if you use wire transfers ($25 charge) or online bill payment through the bank (free)."
},
{
"docid": "379065",
"title": "",
"text": "There are multiple ways in which you can get money to India; - Citi Bank / HDFC Bank offere similar services [and the credit account can be ICICI Bank] - Ask for a Wire/SWIFT transfer, there would be some changes [in the range of USD 30] - Ask for a company check, it would take around 30 days for you to encash in into your bank account in India."
},
{
"docid": "490384",
"title": "",
"text": "Wiring is the best way to move large amounts of money from one country to another. I am sure Japanese banks will allow you to exchange your Japanese Yen into USD and wire it to Canada. I am not sure if they will be able to convert directly from JPY to CND and wire funds in CND. If you can open a USD bank account in Canada, that might make things easier."
},
{
"docid": "445690",
"title": "",
"text": "US bank deposits over $10K only need to be reported to FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network- a bureau of the US Department of Treasury) if the deposits are made in cash or other money instruments where the source cannot be traced (money orders, traveler checks, etc). Regular checks and wires don't need to be reported because there is a clear bank trail of where the money came from. If your family member is giving you money personally (not from a business) from a bank account which is outside of the US, then you only need to report it if the amount is over $100K. Note, you would need to report that regardless of whether the money was deposited into your US bank account, or paid directly to your credit cards on your behalf, and there are stiff penalties if you play games to try to avoid reporting requirements. Neither deposit method would trigger any taxable income for the scenario you described."
},
{
"docid": "193592",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a reasonable requirement which many banks probably have. The reason is that after you deposit a check, ACH or direct deposit - they may be reversed after a couple of days (check bounced, payment canceled, etc). If you wire the money out, and then the check by which you got the money gets bounced - the bank is left hanging because money wired out is very hard to return. Wire transfers are generally irreversible unless its a mistake in the wire. After 10 days, these transactions cannot be reversed and the money is bound to remain on the account, so you can wire it out. By the way, it also goes for cashier's checks as well, I had a similar discussion with my banker (don't remember if it was WF or Chase) when I needed one based on a ACH transfer from my savings account elsewhere. They gave me the check, but said that its because I proved that the transfer was from my own account."
},
{
"docid": "50000",
"title": "",
"text": "\"What is a good bank to use for storing my pay? Preferrably one that has free student accounts. Can I save money from my paychecks directly to a Canadian bank Otherwise, can I connect my bank account to my Canadian account online? Any (almost...) bank in the US has free college checking accounts. If the bank you entered doesn't - exit, and step into the one next door which most likely will. The big names - Wells Fargo, Bank Of America, Chase, Bank of the West, Union Bank, Citi etc - all have it. Also, check your local credit union. Do I need any ID to open a bank account? I have Canadian citizenship and a J-1 visa Bring your passport and a student card/driving license (usually 2 ID's required). What form of money should I take with me? Cash? Should I apply for a debit card? Can I use my Canadian credit card for purchasing anything in the states? (Canadian dollar is stronger than US dollar currently, so this could be to my advantage?) There's some fuss going on about debit cards right now. Some big banks (Bank of America, notably) decided to charge fees for using it. Check it, most of the banks are not charging fees, and as far as I know none of the credit unions are charging. So same thing - if they charge fees for debit card - step out and move on to the next one down the street. Using debit card is pretty convenient, cash is useful for small amount and in places that don't accept cards. If you're asking about how to move money from Canada - check with your local (Canadian) bank about the conversion rates and fees for transfers, check cashing, ATM, card swipes, etc - and see which one is best for you. When I moved large amounts of money across the border, I chose wire transfer because it was the cheapest, but for small amounts many times during the period of your stay it may be more expensive. You can definitely use your Canadian credit/debit card in the States, you'll be charged some fee by your credit card company, and of course the conversion rate. How much tax does I have to pay at the end of my internship? Let's assume one is earning $5,000 per month plus a one time $5,000 housing stipend, all before taxes. Will I be taxed again by the Canadian government? $5K for internship? Wow... You need to talk to a tax specialist, there's probably some treaty between the US and Canada on that, and keep in mind that the State of California taxes your income as well. What are some other tips I can use to save money in the California? California is a very big place. If you live in SF - you'll save a lot by using the MUNI, if your internship is in LA - consider buying an old clunker if you want to go somewhere. If you're in SD - just enjoy the weather, you won't get it in Canada. You'll probably want a \"\"pay as you go\"\" wireless phone plan. If your Canadian phone is unlocked GSM - you can go to any AT&T or T-Mobile store and get a pre-paid SIM for free. Otherwise, get a prepaid phone at any groceries store. It will definitely be cheaper than paying roaming charges to your Canadian provider. You can look at my blog (I'm writing from California), I accumulated a bunch of saving tips there over the years I'm writing it.\""
},
{
"docid": "122986",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your bank uses ClearXchange, not you. It is not a website where you open an account, like many others, but an inter-bank transfer system based on email addresses, kind of like free wire transfers between everyone. You don't have to set anything up, just accept the payment, and the money appears in your account (assuming the client used the email address your bank has on file for you). However, if you still don't want it, you can just ignore it. There is a timeout when his transaction gets auto-cancelled, and he gets his money back. Here is an example text from the 'fine print' (my highlighting): \"\"[...]We will continue our attempts by sending a second notice of a transfer to the recipient, and providing the recipient a period of nine (9) succeeding Business Days to register in the Service, or the person-to-person payment service of clearXchange, Zelle or a Network Bank. At the end of this period, if the recipient still has not registered, the transfer request will be Cancelled. The sender may cancel the transfer at any time during this ten (10) day period if the recipient is not registered at the time of cancellation.[...]\"\" (https://chaseonline.chase.com/Public/Misc/LAContent.aspx?agreementKey=chasenet_la)\""
},
{
"docid": "482684",
"title": "",
"text": "\"To add to @Dheer's answer, this is almost certainly a scam. The money deposited into your account is not from a person that made an honest mistake with account numbers. It's coming from someone that has access to \"\"send\"\" money that isn't their own. I don't know exactly what they're doing to \"\"send\"\" the money but at some point in the near future your bank will claw that money back from you on the grounds that it was illegitimately transferred to you in the first place. If you send someone money on the premise that you're returning this money then that will be a separate transaction which won't be undone when the deposit in question is undone. Another possibility is that this person has gained access to an account from which they can send domestic wires but not international wires. Their hope is to send money to someone domestically (you) and that this person will then send the money on to Nigeria. If you comply with them; you, in a worst case scenario, could be seen as a money laundering accomplice in addition to having the deposit taken back from you. It's not very likely you wouldn't be seen as another victim of a scam but people have been thrown in jail for less. You should not respond to this person at all. Don't answer the phone when they call and ignore their emails. Don't delete the emails, it's possible that someone at the bank or LE want them. Call your bank immediately and tell them what's up.\""
},
{
"docid": "436168",
"title": "",
"text": "The reason banks charge fees for wires, is because the Federal Reserve charges banks to send the wires. The Fed charges the banks a hefty fee, so the banks have to charge you a hefty fee to make up for it. Any time any business gives you a service for free, its because they think they can make more money off of some other service or product they are selling you. So the question becomes, How can I make myself valuable enough to a bank that they will waive my wire fees? The account you linked to is a good example of this: the monthly service charge, along with the $0.50 charge every time you use your debit card, would make up for the number of wires most people send."
},
{
"docid": "560622",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In the case of bank failures You are protected by FDIC insurance. At the time I wrote this, you are insured up to $250,000. In my lifetime, it has been as high as $1,000,000 and as low as $100,000. I attached a link, which is updated by FDIC. In the case of fraud It depends. If you read this story and are horrified (I was too), you know that the banking system is not as safe as the other answers imply: In February 2005, Joe Lopez, a businessman from Florida, filed a suit against Bank of America after unknown hackers stole $90,000 from his Bank of America account. The money had been transferred to Latvia. An investigation showed that Mr. Lopez’s computer was infected with a malicious program, Backdoor.Coreflood, which records every keystroke and sends this information to malicious users via the Internet. This is how the hackers got hold of Joe Lopez’s user name and password, since Mr. Lopez often used the Internet to manage his Bank of America account. However the court did not rule in favor of the plaintiff, saying that Mr. Lopez had neglected to take basic precautions when managing his bank account on the Internet: a signature for the malicious code that was found on his system had been added to nearly all antivirus product databases back in 2003. Ouch. But let's think about the story for a second - he had his money stolen because of online banking and he didn't have the latest antivirus/antimalware software. How safe is banking if you don't do online banking? In the case of this story, it would have prevented keyloggers, but you're still susceptible to someone stealing your card or account information. So: In the bank's defense, how does a bank not know that someone didn't wire money to a friend (which is a loss for good), then get some of that money back from his friend while also getting money back from the bank, which had to face the loss. Yes, it sucks, but it's not total madness. As for disputing charges, from personal experience it also depends. I don't use cards whatsoever, so I've never had to worry, but both of my parents have experienced banking fraud where a fake charge on their card was not reversed. Neither of my parents are rich and can't afford lawyers, so crying \"\"lawsuit\"\" is not an option for everyone. How often does this occur? I suspect it's rare that banks don't reverse the charges in fraudulent cases, though you will still lose time for filing and possibly filling out paperwork. The way to prevent this: As much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there is no absolutely safe place to keep your money. Even if you bought metals and buried them in the ground, a drifter with a metal detector might run across it one day. You can take steps to protect yourself, but there is no absolute guarantee that these will work out. Account Closures I added this today because I saw this question and have only seen/heard about this three times. Provided that you get the cashier's check back safely, you should be okay - but why was this person's account closed and look at how much funds he had! From his question: In the two years I banked with BoA I never had an overdraft or any negative marks on my account so the only thing that would stick out was a check that I deposited for $26k that my mom left me after she passed. Naturally, people aren't going to like some of my answers, especially this, but imagine you're in an immediate need for cash, and you experience this issue. What can you do? Let's say that rent is on the line and it's $25 for every day that you're late. Other steps to protect yourself Some banks allow you to use a keyword or phrase. If you're careful with how you do this and are clever, it will reduce the risk that someone steals your money.\""
},
{
"docid": "329786",
"title": "",
"text": "Our elegant custom wire jewelry can be made into any word, so you aren't simply limited to names. Personalized name Jewelry makes a touching and thoughtful gift- for others or for yourself! Wire jewelry is designed to be passed down for generations to come, each piece is crafted by hand in San Diego, CA While names are our most popular personalized gift which is handmade name necklace, there is a growing trend to have us create unique custom gifts that you won't find anywhere else. These are just some of the few concepts we've made into unforgettable keepsake jewelry. We can make custom jewelry from a picture or your imagination. All handcrafted by Adriana Fine Jewelry are custom made in gold filled wire and sterling silver wire, silver custom bracelet, wire neck choker, personalized mothers jewelry, personalized anklet with birth stone, choker, neck wire."
},
{
"docid": "301161",
"title": "",
"text": "This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone."
},
{
"docid": "152827",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Generally when you open a new account, you'd be given a checkbook (usually \"\"starter\"\" checks with no personal information, but some banks will later mail you a proper checkbook with your personal details) and a debit card (again, some banks will give you a \"\"starter\"\" one on the spot with a personalized following up in the mail, others will mail you). With the debit card you can use your bank's ATM to withdraw cash from your account, or use it for purchases (will debit, as the name says, directly from your account). You can also use it in other ATMs, but that will usually be with significant fees ($2-$5 per withdrawal to both the ATM owner and your bank). Checks - you can write a check to someone or use the check to go to the cashier in the bank and withdraw money (although usually they have special withdrawal slips for that in the branches, so you don't really need to waste your own checks). As to how to deposit money in your home country - you'll have to check with the bank you have an account at back at home. Usually, you can \"\"wire\"\" transfer money from your BoA account to the account back home, but that is usually comes at a fee of about $30-$50 per transfer (in the US, additional fees may be charged at the receiving end + currency conversion costs). You can also write yourself a check and deposit that check at the home country bank, but that depends on the specific bank whether it is possible, how much it would cost, and how long it would take for them to credit the money to your account after they take your check - may take weeks with personal checks.\""
},
{
"docid": "89457",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the answer depends very much on where you are. I believe the other answer covers north america. On contrast, in (continental) Europe, giving the account and bank number (IBAN and BIC) is a (the most) common way to enable someone to send money to you. E.g. in Germany, you need much more than account number and bank number to withdraw money: To \"\"push\"\" money to another account (wire transfer from your account to someone who gave you the other account + bank numbers), you either have to hand-sign a certain form, or (online) certain credentials (e.g. login & password / PIN + TAN) are needed. I.e. for defrauding you, the other would need to get your online credentials (for mTAN also your mobile phone, for chipTAN a TAN generator of your bank [easy] and your bank card, for (i)TAN your TAN list) or fake your signature. There are also ways to allow someone to pull money from your account, see e.g. direct debit For that you sign that the other side is allowed to withdraw specified amounts of money (at specified dates). This is either between you and the other (i.e. your bank cannot check and doesn't reject withdrawals that are not authorized). However, the other side needs to have signed a contract with their bank that they'll only try to withdraw money they're entitled to. or you sign such a thing with your bank (then they do know whether the other side is allowed to withdraw money, and you can tell the bank that you won't accept any further withdrawals from XYZ). In the first case, the withdrawal technically still needs your approval. In order not to create a huge risk of fraud, the rejecting here is really easy: If you tell your bank that you reject the payment, The practical rule is that the payment is approved if you didn't reject within the first 6 weeks after the bank sent the account statement. In other words, until 4 1/2 months after the withdrawal (in case you have a bank that does only quarterly account statements), the one to get the money cannot be really sure that he actually has the money. I think (but I'm not completely sure, maybe someone else can comment/edit) that these two possibilities are also what is used with debit card payments (EC/Maestro card - these are much more common here than real credit card payments). -- end of Germany specific example --\""
},
{
"docid": "473605",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd certainly take a look at companies like UK Forex for transferring funds internationally. Even if you get free wire transfers, the currency rates banks offer can be bad. My experience was transferring from NatWest to an Australian bank - saved my self hundreds of pounds by not using their swift service."
},
{
"docid": "514425",
"title": "",
"text": "As long as your bank does not have any limits on the number of transactions per month you should be fine. The danger would be theft while you had the money before depositing into the new account. I would expect that your new credit union could do a wire transfer for you. It might cost you a few dollars but it would be safer and probably faster."
}
] |
6611 | How does Vanguard determine the optimal asset allocation for their Target Retirement Funds? | [
{
"docid": "293679",
"title": "",
"text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "57070",
"title": "",
"text": "Mostly you nailed it. It's a good question, and the points you raise are excellent and comprise good analysis. Probably the biggest drawback is if you don't agree with the asset allocation strategy. It may be too much/too little into stocks/bonds/international/cash. I am kind of in this boat. My 401K offers very little choices in funds, but offers Vanguard target funds. These tend to be a bit too conservative for my taste, so I actually put money in the 2060 target fund. If I live that long, I will be 94 in 2060. So if the target funds are a bit too aggressive for you, move down in years. If they are a bit too conservative, move up."
},
{
"docid": "419985",
"title": "",
"text": "There's really no right or wrong answer here because you'll be fine either way. If you've investing amounts in the low 5 figures you're likely just getting started, and if your asset allocation is not optimal it's not that big a deal because you have a long time horizon to adjust it, and the expense ratio differences here won't add up to that much. A third option is Vanguard ETFs, which have the expense ratio of Admiral Shares but have lower minimums (i.e. the cost of a single share, typically on the order of $100). However, they are a bit more advanced than mutual funds in that they trade on the market and require you to place orders rather than just specifying the amount you want to buy. A downside here is you might end up with a small amount of cash that you can't invest, since you can initially only buy whole numbers of ETFs shares. So what I'd recommend is buying roughly the correct number of ETFs shares you want except for your largest allocation, then use the rest of your cash on Admiral Shares of that (if possible). For example, let's say you have $15k to invest and you want to be 2/3 U.S. stock, 1/6 international stock, and 1/6 U.S. bond. I would buy as many shares of VXUS (international stock ETF) and BND (U.S. bond ETF) as you can get for $2500 each, then whatever is left over (~$10k) put into VTSAX (U.S. stock Admiral Shares mutual fund)."
},
{
"docid": "434201",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Been here in Japan 12 years mate, and you're right, the investment options here suck. Be very wary of them, they will take all your money in outrageous fees--3% in and 3% out of some \"\"investment\"\" options. It's a scam. Send the money back home and manage it there. I recommend setting up a Vanguard account back in the UK, then you can invest in Vanguard index funds. Vanguard charges no commission for buying and selling their funds when you have a Vanguard account. I have nearly all my money there (Vanguard US), and I use the free Personal Capital online software to understand how to best manage the allocations in my portfolio. Of course you'll lose a bit of money on wire transfer fees, but you'll more than make up for it if in the long-term, and they may also be offset by currency rate anyway (right now the yen is strong, so a good time to use it to buy GBP). Also you may never need to send the money back to Japan unless you plan on retiring here.\""
},
{
"docid": "422401",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The root of the advice Bob is being given is from the premise that the market is temporarily down. If the market is temporarily down, then the stocks in \"\"Fund #1\"\" are on-sale and likely to go up soon (soon is very subjective). If the market is going to go up soon (again subjective) you are probably better in fictitious Fund #1. This is the valid logic that is being used by the rep. I don't think this is manipulative based on costs. It's really up to Bob whether he agrees with that logic or if he disagrees with that logic and to make his own decision based on that. If this were my account, I would make the decision on where to withdraw based on my target asset allocation. Bob (for good or bad reasons) decided on 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. I'd make the withdraw that returns me to my target allocation of 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. Depending on performance and contributions, that might be selling Fund 1, selling Fund 2, or selling some of both.\""
},
{
"docid": "514529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The 0.14% is coming out of the assets of the fund itself. The expense ratio can be broken down so that on any given day, a portion of the fund's assets are set aside to cover the administrative cost of running the fund. A fund's total return already includes the expense ratio. This depends a lot on what kind of account in which you hold the fund. If you hold the fund in an IRA then you wouldn't have taxes from the fund itself as the account is sheltered. There may be notes in the prospectus and latest annual and semi-annual report of what past distributions have been as remember the fund isn't paying taxes but rather passing that along in the form of distributions to shareholders. Also, there is something to be said for what kinds of investments the fund holds as if the fund is to hold small-cap stocks then it may have to sell the stock if it gets too big and thus would pass on the capital gains to shareholders. Other funds may not have this issue as they invest in large-cap stocks that don't have this problem. Some funds may invest in municipal bonds which would have tax-exempt interest that may be another strategy for lowering taxes in bond funds. Depending on the fund quite a broad range actually. In the case of the Fidelity fund you link, it is a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" and thus has a 0% expense ratio as Fidelity has underlying funds that that fund holds. What level of active management are you expecting, what economies of scale does the fund have to bring down the expense ratio and what expense ratio is typical for that category of fund would come to mind as a few things to consider. That Fidelity link is incorrect as both Morningstar and Fidelity's site list an expense ratio for the fund of funds at .79%. I'd expect an institutional US large-cap index fund to have the lowest expense ratio outside of the fund of fund situation while if I were to pick an actively managed fund that requires a lot of research then the expense ratio may well be much higher though this is where you have to consider what strategy do you want the fund to be employing and how much of a cost are you prepared to accept for that? VTTHX is Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund which has a .14% expense ratio which is using index funds in the fund of funds system.\""
},
{
"docid": "186575",
"title": "",
"text": "You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations."
},
{
"docid": "268731",
"title": "",
"text": "I like that you are hedging ONLY the Roth IRA - more than likely you will not touch that until retirement. Looking at fees, I noticed Vanguard Target retirement funds are .17% - 0.19% expense ratios, versus 0.04 - 0.14% for their Small/Mid/Large cap stocks."
},
{
"docid": "403556",
"title": "",
"text": "I would open a taxable account with the same custodian that manages your Roth IRA (e.g., Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.). Then within the taxable account I would invest the extra money in low cost, broad market index funds that are tax efficient. Unlike in your 401(k) and Roth IRA, you will now have tax implications if your funds produce dividends or realize a capital gain. That is why tax-efficient funds are important to minimize this as much as possible. The 3-fund portfolio is a popular choice for taxable accounts because of simplicity and the tax efficiency of broad market index funds that are part of the three fund portfolio. The 3-fund portfolio normally consists of Depending on your tax bracket you may want to consider municipal bonds in your taxable instead of taxable bonds if your tax bracket is 25% or higher. Another option is to forgo bonds altogether in the taxable account and just hold bonds in retirement accounts while keeping tax efficient domestic and international tock funds in your taxable account. Then adjust the bond portion upward in your retirement accounts to account for the additional stocks in your taxable accounts. This will maintain the asset allocation that you've already chosen that is appropriate for your age and goals."
},
{
"docid": "290385",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\""
},
{
"docid": "252918",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Target Date Funds automatically change their diversification balance over time, rebalancing and reassigning new contributions to become progressively more protective of what you've already earned. (As opposed to other funds which continue to maintain the same balance of investments until you explicitly move the money around.) You can certainly make that same evolution manually; we all used to do that before target funds were made available, and many of us still do so. I'm still handling the relative allocations by hand. But I'm also close to my retirement target, so a target fund wouldn't be changing that much more anyway, and since I'm already tracking the curve... Note that if you feel a bit braver, or a bit more cautious, than the \"\"average investor\"\" the target fund was designed for, you can tweak the risk/benefit curve of a Target Date Fund by selecting a fund with a target date a bit later or earlier, respectively, than the date at which you intend to start pulling money back out of the fund.\""
},
{
"docid": "562305",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\"\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\""
},
{
"docid": "134005",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\""
},
{
"docid": "549188",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\""
},
{
"docid": "128077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\""
},
{
"docid": "570117",
"title": "",
"text": "The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house."
},
{
"docid": "454102",
"title": "",
"text": "I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20."
},
{
"docid": "54377",
"title": "",
"text": "Lets say that college costs 100K per kid and they you have 3 (ages 8,9,10) and expect tuition and fees inflation of 8% per year; you are 40 and want to retire at age 65, and would have to replace 80% of you final years salary and expect your salary to increase 2% above inflation, but you do have a pension that based on the number of years of service you will have if you don't switch companies will replace 40% of you final salary, but if you leave now will only cover 15%; the equivalent of social security will replace 10%; your spouse works part time and has no company provided pension; your big single bucket of long term savings has 123,456. Are you on target? You can't answer the question without first determining how much money each of those individual buckets (kid 1, kid 2, kid 3, pension, social security and retirement) needs to have today and in the future. Then you take the money you do have and assign it to the buckets. Of course different accounts have different tax, age, deposit and use rules. Also what happens after the last child graduates, so the amount of money available each year will change significantly. The key to not stealing money from long term savings goals is to realize you also need an emergency fund and a life happens fund. That way an engine repair does require you to pull money from the education fund."
},
{
"docid": "211765",
"title": "",
"text": "Call up vanguard and tell them you want to do a rollover. They walk you through the process. Spend some time on reading up on asset allocation and benefits of indexing. 1.5% every year is steep and what do you have in return? The advisor's word that he'll make it up. How much did he manage to return during the last lost decade? It's a lose-win situation. He'll get his 1.5% no matter how the market does but that's not the deal you are getting. Go with Vanguard. You are already thinking correctly - diversification, rebalancing, low cost!"
},
{
"docid": "335857",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You probably want to think about pools of money separately if they have separate time horizons or are otherwise not interchangeable. A classic example is your emergency fund (which has a potentially-immediate time horizon) vs. your retirement savings. The emergency fund would be all in cash or very short-term bonds, and would not count in your retirement asset allocation. Since the emergency fund usually has a capped value (a certain amount of money you want to have for emergencies) rather than a percentage of net worth value, this especially makes sense; you have to treat the emergency fund separately or you'd have to keep changing your asset allocation percentages as your net worth rises (hopefully) with respect to the capped emergency amount. Similarly, say you are saving for a car in 3 years; you'd probably invest that money very conservatively. Also, it could not go in tax-deferred retirement accounts, and when you buy the car the account will go to zero. So probably worth treating this separately. On the other hand, say you have some savings in tax-deferred retirement accounts and some in taxable accounts, but in both cases you're expecting to use the money for retirement. In that case, you have the same time horizon and goals, and it can pay to think about the taxable and nontaxable accounts as a whole. In particular you can use \"\"asset location\"\" (put less-tax-efficient assets in tax-deferred accounts). In this case maybe you would end up with mostly bonds in the tax-deferred accounts and mostly equities in the taxable accounts, for tax reasons; the asset allocation would only make sense considering all the accounts, since the taxable account would be too equity-heavy and the tax-deferred one too bond-heavy. There can be practical reasons to treat each account separately, too, though. For example if your broker has a convenient automatic rebalancing tool on their website, it probably only works within an account. Treating each account by itself would let you use the automatic rebalancing feature on the website, while a more complicated asset location strategy where you rebalance across multiple accounts might be too hard and in practice you wouldn't get around to it. Getting around to rebalancing could be more important than tax-motivated asset location. You could also take a keep-it-simple attitude: as long as your asset allocation is pretty balanced (say 40% bonds) and includes a cash allocation that would cover emergencies, you could just put all your money in one big portfolio, and think of it as a whole. If you have an emergency, withdraw from the cash allocation and then rebuild it over time; if you have a major purchase, you could redeem some bonds and then rebuild the bond portion over time. (When I say \"\"over time\"\" I'm thinking you might start putting new contributions into the now-underallocated assets, or you might dollar-cost-average back into them by selling bits of the now-overallocated assets.) Anyway there's no absolute rule, it depends on what's simple enough to be manageable for you in practice, and what separate shorter-horizon investing goals you have in addition to retirement. You can always make things complex but remember that a simple plan that happens in real life is better than a complex plan you don't keep up with in practice (or a complex plan that takes away from activities you'd enjoy more).\""
}
] |
6611 | How does Vanguard determine the optimal asset allocation for their Target Retirement Funds? | [
{
"docid": "198764",
"title": "",
"text": "While the Vanguard paper is good, it doesn't do a very good job of explaining precisely why each level of stocks or bonds was optimal. If you'd like to read a transparent and quantitative explanation of when and why a a glide path is optimal, I'd suggest the following paper: https://www.betterment.com/resources/how-we-construct-portfolio-allocation-advice/ (Full disclosure - I'm the author). The answer is that the optimal risk level for any given holding period depends upon a combination of: Using these two factors, you construct a risk-averse decision model which chooses the risk level with the best expected average outcome, where it looks only at the median and lower percentile outcomes. This produces an average which is specifically robust to downside risk. The result will look something like this: The exact results will depend on the expected risk and return of the portfolio, and the degree of risk aversion specified. The result is specifically valid for the case where you liquidate all of the portfolio at a specific point in time. For retirement, the glide path needs to be extended to take into account the fact that the portfolio will be liquidated gradually over time, and dynamically take into account the longevity risk of the individual. I can't say precisely why Vanguard's path is how it is."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "489433",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For allocation, there's rules of thumb. 120-age is the percentage some folks recommend for stock market (high risk) allocation. With the balance in bonds, and a bit of international fund to add some more diversity. However, everyone needs to determine how much risk they're willing to take, and what their horizon is. Once you figure out your allocation, determine how much of your surplus goes into investing, and how much goes into short term savings for your short term financial goals such as purchasing a home. I would highly recommend reading about \"\"Financial Independence, Retire Early\"\" (FIRE). Most of the articles I've seen on it were folks in the US, with the odd Canadian and Brit, but the principles should be able to work in the Netherlands with adjustment. The idea behind FIRE is that you adjust your lifestyle to minimize expenses and save as much of your income as possible. When the growth of your savings is > the amount you spend on a yearly basis, you've reached financial independence and can retire any time you wish. CD ladder is a good idea for your emergency fund, but CDs (at least in the US) usually pay around the same rate as inflation, give or take. A ladder would help you preserve your emergency fund.\""
},
{
"docid": "7208",
"title": "",
"text": "Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad."
},
{
"docid": "329425",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Anything under 0.20% is \"\"really good, leave it alone.\"\" However, since you have access to their institutional funds, it isn't unreasonable to come up with your own desired asset allocation and save another half of the fees. If you're happy with the Target Retirement date fund, just stick with it, but if you've got a particular AA you want to maintain, go for that with the cheaper underlying funds.\""
},
{
"docid": "493366",
"title": "",
"text": "Here are the specific Vanguard index funds and ETF's I use to mimic Ray Dalio's all weather portfolio for my taxable investment savings. I invest into this with Vanguard personal investor and brokerage accounts. Here's a summary of the performance results from 2007 to today: 2007 is when the DBC commodity fund was created, so that's why my results are only tested back that far. I've tested the broader asset class as well and the results are similar, but I suggest doing that as well for yourself. I use portfoliovisualizer.com to backtest the results of my portfolio along with various asset classes, that's been tremendously useful. My opinionated advice would be to ignore the local investment advisor recommendations. Nobody will ever care more about your money than you, and their incentives are misaligned as Tony mentions in his book. Mutual funds were chosen over ETF's for the simplicity of auto-investment. Unfortunately I have to manually buy the ETF shares each month (DBC and GLD). I'm 29 and don't use this for retirement savings. My retirement is 100% VSMAX. I'll adjust this in 20 years or so to be more conservative. However, when I get close to age 45-50 I'm planning to shift into this allocation at a market high point. When I approach retirement, this is EXACTLY where I want to be. Let's say you had $2.7M in your retirement account on Oct 31, 2007 that was invested in 100% US Stocks. In Feb of 2009 your balance would be roughly $1.35M. If you wanted to retire in 2009 you most likely couldn't. If you had invested with this approach you're account would have dropped to $2.4M in Feb of 2009. Disclaimer: I'm not a financial planner or advisor, nor do I claim to be. I'm a software engineer and I've heavily researched this approach solely for my own benefit. I have absolutely no affiliation with any of the tools, organizations, or funds mentioned here and there's no possible way for me to profit or gain from this. I'm not recommending anyone use this, I'm merely providing an overview of how I choose to invest my own money. Take or leave it, that's up to you. The loss/gain incured from this is your responsibility, and I can't be held accountable."
},
{
"docid": "70072",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yes, the \"\"based on\"\" claim appears to be true – but the Nobel laureate did not personally design that specific investment portfolio ;-) It looks like the Gone Fishin' Portfolio is made up of a selection of low-fee stock and bond index funds, diversified by geography and market-capitalization, and regularly rebalanced. Excerpt from another article, dated 2003: The Gone Fishin’ Portfolio [circa 2003] Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX) – 15% Vanguard Small-Cap Index (NAESX) – 15% Vanguard European Stock Index (VEURX) – 10% Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX) – 10% Vanguard Emerging Markets Index (VEIEX) – 10% Vanguard Short-term Bond Index (VFSTX) – 10% Vanguard High-Yield Corporates Fund (VWEHX) – 10% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund (VIPSX) – 10% Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX) – 5% Vanguard Precious Metals Fund (VGPMX) – 5% That does appear to me to be an example of a portfolio based on Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), \"\"which tries to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk\"\" (per Wikipedia). MPT was introduced by Harry Markowitz, who did go on to share the 1990 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. (Note: That is the economics equivalent of the original Nobel Prize.) You'll find more information at NobelPrize.org - The Prize in Economics 1990 - Press Release. Finally, for what it's worth, it isn't rocket science to build a similar portfolio. While I don't want to knock the Gone Fishin' Portfolio (I like most of its parts), there are many similar portfolios out there based on the same concepts. For instance, I'm reminded of a similar (though simpler) portfolio called the Couch Potato Portfolio, made popular by MoneySense magazine up here in Canada. p.s. This other question about asset allocation is related and informative.\""
},
{
"docid": "514529",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The 0.14% is coming out of the assets of the fund itself. The expense ratio can be broken down so that on any given day, a portion of the fund's assets are set aside to cover the administrative cost of running the fund. A fund's total return already includes the expense ratio. This depends a lot on what kind of account in which you hold the fund. If you hold the fund in an IRA then you wouldn't have taxes from the fund itself as the account is sheltered. There may be notes in the prospectus and latest annual and semi-annual report of what past distributions have been as remember the fund isn't paying taxes but rather passing that along in the form of distributions to shareholders. Also, there is something to be said for what kinds of investments the fund holds as if the fund is to hold small-cap stocks then it may have to sell the stock if it gets too big and thus would pass on the capital gains to shareholders. Other funds may not have this issue as they invest in large-cap stocks that don't have this problem. Some funds may invest in municipal bonds which would have tax-exempt interest that may be another strategy for lowering taxes in bond funds. Depending on the fund quite a broad range actually. In the case of the Fidelity fund you link, it is a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" and thus has a 0% expense ratio as Fidelity has underlying funds that that fund holds. What level of active management are you expecting, what economies of scale does the fund have to bring down the expense ratio and what expense ratio is typical for that category of fund would come to mind as a few things to consider. That Fidelity link is incorrect as both Morningstar and Fidelity's site list an expense ratio for the fund of funds at .79%. I'd expect an institutional US large-cap index fund to have the lowest expense ratio outside of the fund of fund situation while if I were to pick an actively managed fund that requires a lot of research then the expense ratio may well be much higher though this is where you have to consider what strategy do you want the fund to be employing and how much of a cost are you prepared to accept for that? VTTHX is Vanguard Target Retirement 2035 Fund which has a .14% expense ratio which is using index funds in the fund of funds system.\""
},
{
"docid": "481475",
"title": "",
"text": "I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month."
},
{
"docid": "105468",
"title": "",
"text": "\"One reason is that you can trade in the IRA without incurring incremental taxes along the way. This may be especially important if you intend to shift your portfolio allocation as you approach retirement. For instance, gradually selling stocks and buying bonds can incur taxes if you do it in a taxable account (if you do it while you have other income and thus may face capital gains taxes). Also, if you have mutual funds in a taxable account, they may distribute capital gains to you that you'll owe taxes on, but holding the funds in an IRA will shield you from that. There are also some other side benefits to IRAs because they are considered to \"\"not count\"\" for certain purposes when determining what you're worth. For instance, if you go bankrupt, you could be forced to sell assets in taxable accounts to pay your creditors, whereas IRAs are protected in many cases. Likewise, if you try to get financial aid to pay for college for your kids, money in an IRA won't be counted among your assets in determining your aid eligibility, potentially giving your kids access to more aid money. Finally, an especially prominent benefit is, paradoxically, the early withdrawal penalty. For many people, part of the purpose of an IRA is to \"\"lock away\"\" their money and prevent themselves from accessing it until retirement. Early withdrawal penalties provide a concrete consequence that psychologically deters them from raiding their retirement savings willy-nilly.\""
},
{
"docid": "128077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\""
},
{
"docid": "130941",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is absolutely normal for your investments to go down at times. If you pull money out whenever your investments decrease in value, you lock in the losses. It is better to do a bit of research and come up with some sort of strategy about how you will manage your investments. One such strategy is to choose a target asset allocation (or let the \"\"target date\"\" fund choose it for you) and never sell until you need the money for retirement. Some would advocate various other strategies that involve timing the market. The important thing is that you find a strategy that you can live with and that provides you with enough confidence that you won't buy and sell at random. Acting on gut feelings and selling whenever you feel queasy will likely lead to worse outcomes in the long run.\""
},
{
"docid": "134005",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\""
},
{
"docid": "391861",
"title": "",
"text": "Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income."
},
{
"docid": "516607",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well. The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance. Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice. If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the \"\"best\"\" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns. This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio. In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile. New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target. If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target.\""
},
{
"docid": "424247",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a \"\"high net worth\"\" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!\""
},
{
"docid": "186575",
"title": "",
"text": "You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations."
},
{
"docid": "175927",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Use VTIVX. The \"\"Target Retirement 2045\"\" and \"\"Target Retirement 2045 Trust Plus\"\" are the same underlying fund, but the latter is offered through employers. The only differences I see are the expense ratio and the minimum investment dollars. But for the purposes of comparing funds, it should be pretty close. Here is the list of all of Vanguard's target retirement funds. Also, note that the \"\"Trust Plus\"\" hasn't been around as long, so you don't see the returns beyond the last few years. That's another reason to use plain VTIVX for comparison. See also: Why doesn't a mutual fund in my 401(k) have a ticker symbol?\""
},
{
"docid": "482385",
"title": "",
"text": "Wells Fargo. They have an account called PMA, an umbrella account for checking, savings, mortgage, and brokerage accounts. It would cost $30/month, but I never had to pay because I have a rollover retirement account that is enough to waive the fees. They count all accounts, including mortgage, which I used to have. Oh, and no restrictions. An added advantage is there are no fees for any of the accounts, nor for some other things, like bank checks, outside ATM fees, etc. I'm in California, so I don't know if the same deal exists in other states. But if you qualify for the free account, it's pretty good. Actually, most of my investments are Vanguard funds. And I have another rollover account with Vanguard, and never pay fees, but I only buy or sell from one Vanguard fund to another, and rarely since I have targeted retirement funds that are designed to be no maintenance. For some reason, I trust Vanguard more than most other funds; maybe because I like their philosophy on low-cost funds, which they started but are now getting more popular."
},
{
"docid": "81304",
"title": "",
"text": "You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here."
},
{
"docid": "549364",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\""
}
] |
6612 | If I have a lot of debt and the housing market is rising, should I rent and slowly pay off my debt or buy and roll the debt into a mortgage? | [
{
"docid": "254454",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The only way to \"\"roll\"\" debt into a home purchase is to have sufficient down payment. Under the \"\"new\"\" lending rules that took effect in Canada earlier this year, you must have at least 5% of the purchase price as a down payment. If you have $60,000 in additional debt, the total amount of mortgage still cannot be greater than 95% of the purchase price. Below is an example. Purchase price of home $200,000. Maximum mortgage $190,000 (95% of purchase price) Total outside debt $60,000 That means the mortgage (other than the current debt of $60k) can only be $130,000 This means you would need a down payment of $70,000. Also keep in mind that I have not included any other legal fees, real estate commissions, etc in this example. Since it is safe to assume that you do not have $70k available for a down payment, renting and paying down the debt is likely the better route. Pay off the credit card(s) first as they have the higher interest amount. Best of luck!\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "87150",
"title": "",
"text": "To point #1: We are moving but I don't know If I can afford the rent as the family grows I would start by looking at your debt-to-income ratio. In the US, most banks look at this for mortgage purposes, but it also gives you a general idea of what monthly mortgage payments will be comfortable given your particular financial situation. Think of it this way, if a bank is unwilling to lend you money because of a high debt-to-income level, this indicates that you have very little leeway with regard to your budget. So a lower number indicates that you will have more flexibility and comfort with meeting your rent/mortgage obligations when unforeseen bills pop up. The article below indicates having < 43% DTI is ideal (in the US). Here's a link to a debt to income calculator and some extra info (I suggest finding one aimed at the UK market): WellsFargo debt to income calculator Why is the 43% debt to income ratio important? Point #2: How can a person measure how much to spend on food, car, bills or rent from his salary? Is there a formula to keep in check? Other answers have addressed how to make a budget, so I will not repeat that. However, here's another angle with regards to spending/saving. This article recommends 50/30/20: According to the popular 50/30/20 rule, you should reserve 50 percent of your budget for essentials like rent and food, 30 percent for discretionary spending, and at least 20 percent for savings. Read more at: https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-much-should-you-save-every-month-2 In the real world, these goals may not be realistic, and different people have different ideas about how aggressive to be with regards to savings. However, you can get a general idea and adapt for your particular needs. Point 3: I find myself looking at my account every single day and get tensed and sad because almost whenever the money (pay) comes in I freak out that after everything there is nothing for us to enjoy or save."
},
{
"docid": "424598",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm probably going to get a bunch of downvotes for this, but here's my not-very-popular point of view: I think many times we tend to shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to get too clever with our money. In all our cleverness, we forget a few basic rules about how money works: It's better to have 0 debt and a small amount of savings than lots of debt and lots of savings. Debt will bite you. Many times even the \"\"good\"\" mortgage debt will bite you. I have several friends who have gotten mortgages only to find out they had to move long before they were able to pay it off. And they weren't able to sell their homes or they sold at a loss. When you have debt, you are restricted. Someone else is always holding something over your head. You're bound to it. Pay it off ASAP (within reason) while putting a decent amount into a high-yield savings account. Only after the debt is gone, go and be clever with your money.\""
},
{
"docid": "287876",
"title": "",
"text": "If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year."
},
{
"docid": "413955",
"title": "",
"text": "To add to @michael's solid answer, I would suggest sitting down and analyzing what your priorities are about paying off the student loan debt versus investing that money immediately. (Regardless, the first thing you should do is, as michael suggested, pay off the credit card debt) Since it looks like you will be having some new expenses coming up soon (rent, possibly a new car), as part of that prioritization you should calculate what your rent (and associated bills) will cost you on a monthly basis (including saving a bit each month!) and see if you can afford to pay everything without incurring new debt. I'd recommend trying to come up with several scenarios to see how cheaply you can live (roommates, maybe you can figure out a way to go without a car, etc). If, for whatever reason, you find you can't afford everything, then I would suggest taking a portion of your inheritance to at least pay off enough of your student loans so that you can afford all of your costs per month, and then save or invest the rest. (You can invest all you like, but if you don't live within your means, it won't do you any good.) Finally -- be aware that you may have other factors that come into play that may override financial considerations. I found myself in a situation similar to yours, and in my case, I chose to pay off my debts, not because it necessarily made the best financial sense, but that because of those other considerations, paying off that debt meant I had a significant level of stress removed from my life, and a lot more peace of mind."
},
{
"docid": "375537",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your post has some assumptions that are not, or may not be true. For one the assumption is that you have to wait 7 years after you settle your debts to buy a home. That is not the case. For some people (me included) settling an charged off debt was part of my mortgage application process. It was a small debt that a doctor's office claimed I owed, but I didn't. The mortgage company told me, settling the debt was \"\"the cost of doing business\"\". Settling your debts can be looked as favorable. Option 1, in my opinion is akin to stealing. You borrowed the money and you are seeking to game the system by not paying your debts. Would you want someone to do that to you? IIRC the debt can be sold to another company, and the time period is refreshed and can stay on your credit report for beyond the 7 years. I could be wrong, but I feel like there is a way for potential lenders to see unresolved accounts well beyond specified time periods. After all, the lenders are the credit reporting agencies customers and they seek to provide the most accurate view of a potential lender. With 20K of unresolved CC debt they should point that out to their customers. Option 2: Do you have 20K? I'd still seek to settle, you do not have to wait 7 years. Your home may not appreciate in 2 years. In my own case my home has appricated very little in the 11 years that I have owned it. Many people have learned the hard way that homes do not necessarily increase in value. It is very possible that you may have a net loss in equity in two years. Repairs or improvements can evaporate the small amount of equity that is achieved over two years with a 30 year mortgage. I would hope that you pause a bit at the fact that you defaulted on 20K in debt. That is a lot of money. Although it is a lot, it is a small amount in comparison to the cost and maintenance of a home. Are you prepared to handle such a responsibility? What has changed in your personality since the 20K default? The tone of your posts suggests you are headed for the same sort of calamity. This is far more than a numbers game it is behavioral.\""
},
{
"docid": "187739",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt."
},
{
"docid": "235415",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Congratulations on earning a great income. However, you have a lot of debt and very high living expenses. This will eat all of your income if you don't get a hold of it now. I have a few recommendations for you. At the beginning of each month, write down your income, and write down all your expenses for the month. Include everything: rent, food, utilities, entertainment, transportation, loan payments, etc. After you've made this plan for the month, don't spend any money that's not in the plan. You are allowed to change the plan, but you can't spend more than your income. Budgeting software, such as YNAB, will make this easier. You are $51,000 in debt. That is a lot. A large portion of your monthly budget is loan payments. I recommend that you knock those out as fast as possible. The interest on these loans makes the debt continue to grow the longer you hold them, which means that if you take your time paying these off, you'll be spending much more than $51k on your debt. Minimize that number and get rid of them as fast as possible. Because you want to get rid of the debt emergency as fast as possible, you should reduce your spending as much as you can and pay as much as you can toward the debt. Pay off that furniture first (the interest rate on that \"\"free money\"\" is going to skyrocket the first time you are late with a payment), then attack the student loans. Stay home and cook your own meals as much as possible. You may want to consider moving someplace cheaper. The rent you are paying is not out of line with your income, but New York is a very expensive place to live in general. Moving might help you reduce your expenses. I hope you realize at this point that it was pretty silly of you to borrow $4k for a new bedroom set while you were $47k in debt. You referred to your low-interest loans as \"\"free money,\"\" but they really aren't. They all need to be paid back. Ask yourself: If you had forced yourself to save up $4k before buying the furniture, would you still have purchased the furniture, or would you have instead bought a used set on Craigslist for $200? This is the reason that furniture stores offer 0% interest loans. They got you to buy something that you couldn't afford. Don't take the bait again. You didn't mention credit cards, so I hope that means that you don't owe any money on credit cards. If you do, then you need to start thinking of that as debt, and add that to your debt emergency. If you do use a credit card, commit to only charging what you already have in the bank and paying off the card in full every month. YNAB can make this easier. $50/hr and $90k per year are fairly close to each other when you factor in vacation and holidays. That is not including other benefits, so any other benefits put the salaried position ahead. You said that you have a few more years on your parents' health coverage, but there is no need to wait until the last minute to get your own coverage. Health insurance is a huge benefit. Also, in general, I would say that salaried positions have better job security. (This is no guarantee, of course. Anyone can get laid off. But, as a contractor, they could tell you not to come in tomorrow, and you'd be done. Salaried employees are usually given notice, severance pay, etc.) if I were you, I would take the salaried position. Investing is important, but so is eliminating this debt emergency. If you take the salaried position, one of your new benefits will be a retirement program. You can take advantage of that, especially if the company is kicking in some money. (This actually is \"\"free money.\"\") But in my opinion, if you treat the debt as an emergency and commit to eliminating it as fast as possible, you should minimize your investing at this point, if it helps you get out of debt faster. After you get out of debt, investing should be one of your major goals. Now, while you are young and have few commitments, is the best time to learn to live on a budget and eliminate your debt. This will set you up for success in the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "216384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Having convinced myself that there is no point of paying someone's else mortgage Somewhat rhetorical this many years later, but I expect some other kid forcefed the obsession with propping up the housing market might be repeating the nonsense about \"\"paying someone else's mortgage\"\" and read this. Will you be buying your own farm to grow your own food, or are you happy with people using the money you spend on food for a mortgage? How about clothes? Will you be weaving your own clothes because you don't want money you spend on clothes to pay someone else's mortgage? What's special about the money you pay for rent that you get annoyed at how someone else spends it? Don't get a mortgage just because you don't like the idea of how other people might spend the money that's no longer yours after you pay them with it. As an aside, at your age with your income and no debt, you could be sensibly investing a lot of money. If you did that for five years, you'd be in a much better position that you would be tying yourself to whatever current scheme the UK is using to desperately prop up house prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "477907",
"title": "",
"text": "In general, saving money should be prioritized over extra debt payments. Every dollar that you spend paying down a debt will decrease the amount of principal owed; this will directly decrease the future interest payments you will make. However, as time goes on, you are dealing with a smaller and smaller set of principal; additionally, it is assumed that your income will grow (or at least keep pace with inflation), making the debt more bearable. On the other hand, every dollar you save (or invest) now will increase your future income - also making the future debt more bearable. Not only that, but the longer you save, the more value to you get from having saved, meaning you should save as early as possible. Finally, the benefits of paying down the mortgage early end when the mortgage is completely paid off, while the benefits of saving will continue (and even grow) after the house is owned free and clear. That is, if you have an extra $100,000 to put into the mortgage during the life of the loan, you could sink that into the mortgage and see it disappear, or you could invest it, and reap the dividends for the rest of your life. Caveat emptor: behavior trumps numbers. This only works if you will actually be disciplined about saving the extra money rather than paying off debt. If you're the kind of person for whom money burns a hole in your pocket until you spend it, then use it on debt. But if you are able to save and invest that money, you will be better off in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "14083",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the \"\"renter\"\" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the \"\"landlord,\"\" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a \"\"lot\"\" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your \"\"rent\"\" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have \"\"portable equity\"\" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will \"\"get lucky\"\" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because \"\"sky rockets\"\" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house.\""
},
{
"docid": "63698",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."
},
{
"docid": "192540",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\""
},
{
"docid": "317945",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\""
},
{
"docid": "586626",
"title": "",
"text": "You mention only two debts, mortgage and student loan, but you mention $19K in savings, which suggests that you are a saver, and likely do not have other debts. You did not mention your (net) income and expenses (income statement), but since you have substantial savings, you likely live within your means (income > expenses). Since you mention $38K in retirement, we might conclude you are regularly saving for retirement (are you saving 10% toward retirement)? You did not mention any medical condition or other debts, that might require a large savings, so I would suggest having 6 months savings ($2.5K x 6 = $15K) but should your net expenses be less, you might reduce this ($2K x 6 = $12K). You do not mention any investment you might want to make, but since you did not mention any candidate investments, we can assume you have no (specific) investments you find particularly attractive. You did not mention anything you were saving to purchase that you might want to purchase. You have combined $19K + $50K = $69K savings, and $15K would be a comfortable emergency savings, leaving $54K you could use to reduce mortgage or student loan debt. The mortgage debt interest @4.5%, is higher, so paying that debt off would be like earning 4.5% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. At your income, your marginal tax rate is low enough that the mortgage interest deduction (if you do itemize) would not reduce this return much (15% if you itemize). The student loan debt interest @2.8%, would be like earning 2.8% guaranteed return on your money, tax-free. Clearly the higher return on your 'investment' in paying off debt would be reducing your mortgage balance (over 50% higher return on investment, compared to the student loan debt). You did not mention any circumstance that might cause the student loan rate to increase, the mortgage rate to increase, nor did you mention any difficulty making both the mortgage and student loan payments, the amounts of either payment, nor the number of years remaining to pay on either. Should you need (or desire) to reduce your payments, you could choose to payoff the student loan to eliminate one payment, and thus decrease your expenses. Or you could choose to pay down the mortgage, and refinance (or refactor) the mortgage to obtain a smaller payment. Another strategy (assuming you have had your house for 5-7 years), might be to pay the mortgage down enough to refinance into a 15 year loan, and (assuming you have a good credit score) obtain a lower (3%) rate. But I am going to suggest you consider a blended approach. Combine the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach with the reduce the interest rate approach. Take the $54K ($57K?) available (after reserving 6 months emergency fund), and split between both. You pay your mortgage down by $27K and your student loan debt down by $27K. Your blended return on investment is (2.8+4.5)/2 = 3.65%, and you have the following Balance Sheet: Assets: Debts: The next steps would be to, There are two great reasons for paying off the student loan debt. One is the Dave Ramsey Debt Snowball approach which is that this is the smaller debt, and thus represents a psychological win, and the other is that student loan debt has special treatment even in bankruptcy."
},
{
"docid": "594051",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Good debt and \"\"Bad debt\"\" are just judgement calls. Each person has their own opinion on when it is acceptable to borrow money for something, and when it is not. For some, it is never acceptable to borrow money for something; they won't even borrow money to buy a house. Others, of course, are in debt up to their eyeballs. All debt costs money in interest. So when evaluating whether to borrow or not, you need to ask yourself, \"\"Is the benefit I am getting by borrowing this money worth the cost?\"\" Home ownership has a lot of advantages: For many, these advantages, coupled with the facts that home mortgages are available at extremely low interest rates and that home mortgage interest is tax-deductible (in the U.S.), make home mortgages \"\"worth it\"\" in the eyes of many. Contrast that with car ownership: For these reasons, there are many people who consider the idea of borrowing money to purchase a car a bad idea. I have written an answer on another question which outlines a few reasons why it is better to pay cash for a car.\""
},
{
"docid": "277664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\""
},
{
"docid": "461879",
"title": "",
"text": "I think people are conflating two orthogonal sets of terms. Unsecured/secured and good/bad are not synonyms. Debt may be secured or unsecured. If I take a loan against a car or house it is typically secured, so the object is collateral against the loan. Bad debt in financial terms is a loan that is not expected to be recovered. A bank might write off a loan or a portion of a loan as bad debt if the borrower goes bankrupt or into administration for example. Both secured and unsecured loans may be considered bad debt. I think the context in which the question is being asked is how to distinguish between sensible and inadvisable borrowing. An extreme example of inadvisable borrowing would be to buy a PC on a store card. PCs devalue very quickly and a store card may charge 30% APR, so paying the minimum off each month would mean paying more than twice the sticker price for a product that is now worth less than half the original borrowed amount. On the other hand, a 3% mortgage when borrowing less than 60% of the value of a property is a good bet from a lender's perspective, and would be a good debt to have (not as good as no debt, but better thhan a high APR one)."
},
{
"docid": "99658",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the answer to how much you \"\"should\"\" spend depends on a few more questions: Once you answer these questions I think you'll have a better idea of what you should spend. If you have no financial goals then what kind of car you buy doesn't really matter. But if your goals are to build and accumulate wealth both in the short and long term then you should know that, by the numbers, a car is terrible financial investment. A new car loses thousands of dollars in value the moment you drive it off the lot. Buy the cheapest, reliable commuter you can ($5k or less) and use the extra money to pay off your debts. Then once your debts are paid off start investing that money. If you continue this frugal mindset with your other purchases (what house to buy, what food to eat, what indulgences to indulge in, etc...) and invest a bit, I think you'll find it pretty easy to create a giant amount of wealth.\""
}
] |
6612 | If I have a lot of debt and the housing market is rising, should I rent and slowly pay off my debt or buy and roll the debt into a mortgage? | [
{
"docid": "205522",
"title": "",
"text": "What you propose is to convert unsecured debt into secured debt. Conversion of unsecured debt into secured debt is not generally a good idea (several reasons). The debt you currently owe does not have assets securing the debt, so the creditor knows they are exposed to risk, and may be more willing to negotiate or relax terms on the debt, should you encounter problems. When you provide an asset to secure debt, you lose freedom to sell that asset. When you incur debt their is usually a spending problem that needs to be corrected, which is typically not fixed when a refinance solution is used. You do not mention interest rate, which would be one benefit to conversion of unsecured to secured debt, so you probably are not gaining adequate benefit from the conversion strategy. This strategy is often contemplated using 'cash-out' refinancing to borrow against a home you already own, and the (claimed) benefit is often to lower the interest rate on the debt. Your scenario is more complicated in that you have not purchased the home (yet). Though it may be a good idea to purchase a home, that choice depends on a different set of considerations (children, job stability, rental vs. buy costs, lifestyle, expected appreciation, etc) from how to best handle a large debt (income vs. expenses, how to increase income or reduce expenses, lifestyle, priorities, etc). Another consideration is that you already have a problem with the large debt owed to one (set of) creditor(s), and you have a plan which would shift the risk/exposure to another (set of) creditor(s) who may have been less complicit in accruing the original debt. Was the debt incurred jointly during the marriage, and something you accepted responsibility to repay? You mention that you make great income, and you specify one expense (rent), but you neither provided the amount of income, total of all your expenses, nor your free cash flow amount, nor any indication of percentages spent on rent, essential expenses, lifestyle, nor amount available to retire debt. Since you did not provide specifics, we can take a look at three scenarios, scenario #1, $4000/month income scenario #1, $6000/month income scenario #1, $8000/month income Depending upon your income and choices, you might have < $500/month to pay towards debt, or as much as $3000/month to pay towards debt, and depending upon interest rate (which OP did not provide), this debt could take < 2 years to pay or > 5 years to pay. Have you accepted the responsibility for the debt? It will be a tough task to repay the debt. And you will learn that debt comes with a cost as you repay it. One problem people often encounter when they refinance debt is they have not changed the habits which produced the debt. So they often continue their spending habits and incur new unsecured debt, landing them back in the same problem position, but with the increased secured debt combined with additional new unsecured debt. Challenge yourself to repay a specific portion of the debt in a specific time, and consider ways to reduce your expenses (and/or increase your income) to provide more money to repay the debt quicker. As you also did not disclose your assets, it is hard to know whether you could repay a portion of the debt from assets you already own. It makes sense to sell assets that have a low (or zero) return to repay debt that has a high interest rate. Perhaps you have substantial assets that you are reluctant to sell, but that you could sell to repay a large part of the debt?"
}
] | [
{
"docid": "167943",
"title": "",
"text": "is it a smart thing for an entry level employee with a basic pay to buy a property on debt ? This is opinion based and can't be conclusively answered by others. Only you can make the choice. Their reasoning is that, since I am paying for their house rent right now(I have been doing this ever since I got into graduate school), I could divert it to pay for the loan while getting a property in return If I understand this, you are currently NRI [as you are working in Japan], you would like to take a home loan in India and buy a property in India. In the current scenario, the EMI towards home loan do not equate to the Rent as property prices have gone up in most places. In 2002 - 2007, there was a time of low interest rates and low property prices, that along with tax breaks made it cheaper to buy than rent. Also note that since you are NRI, you do not get any income tax rebate on interest paid. If you buy please ensure that all the EMI's are paid from NRE account. This would in future help you repatriate funds out of India, if you plan to sell the house. But I am scared of getting into debt so early in my career. If I commit myself like that, it might make me less courageous in making career changes till I finish paying off that debt. This is a valid concern, if you need to pursue further studies, or take a break for a change in career, it would make it difficult. Also note there are additional costs of buying a house, apart from EMI, there property tax, if you staying in society, a monthly maintenance etc."
},
{
"docid": "343917",
"title": "",
"text": "The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it."
},
{
"docid": "443852",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: NO. Do NOT buy a house. Houses are a \"\"luxury\"\" good (see Why is a house not an investment?). Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment. Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them. Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional. I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts. Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible. Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less. Your kids do not need separate bedrooms. Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority. You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "498236",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I disagree. I believe money should be invested, not spent. Investing is something you should do as early as possible, even (especially) before incurring personal debt, such as cars, houses, student loans, etc. As Warren Buffet says, delaying investment until you are all paid up, is like saving sex for your old age. Remember that you are considering an investment, not another expense. The only consideration is whether or not the property will be cashflow-positive, i.e. \"\"does it make more in rent than it costs to maintain?\"\". If it is, buy it. You can use the income to pay off those debts faster, and at the end you will still have the income stream. Second, it makes no sense to use all your cash when the bank is willing to lend you money. There is nothing wrong with debt, as long as it is attached to an asset, i.e. something that makes more money than it costs. If you have that much cash, buy several apartment buildings, hire a management company, and retire.\""
},
{
"docid": "466587",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\""
},
{
"docid": "192540",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\""
},
{
"docid": "569628",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You are doing Great! But you might want to read a couple of books and do some studying on budgeting and personal finance - education yourself now and you will avoid pain in the future. I learned a lot from reading Dave Ramsey's Total Money Makeover, and I have found some great advice from the simple budgeting guidelines on LearnVest. Budget in these three categories with these percentages, You may find that your \"\"essentials\"\" lower than 50%, because you are sharing room and utilities. You want to put as much into \"\"financial\"\" as you can for the first 1-2 years, to reduce (or eliminate) your student loan debt. Many folks will recommend you save six months (salary/expenses) for emergencies and unexpected situations. But understand that you are in debt now, and you have a unique opportunity to pay off your debt before your living expenses creep up (as they so often do). Since you are a contractor, put aside 2 months expenses (twice what I would normally advise), and then attack paying off your debts with passion. Since you have a mix of student loans, focus on paying them off by picking one at a time, paying the minimum against the others while you pay off the one you picked, then proceed to the next. Dave Ramsey advises a Debt Snowball, paying the smallest one first (psychological advantage, early wins), while others advise paying the highest interest off first. Since you have over $2400/month available to pay down debt, you could plan on reducing your student loan debt substantially in a year. But avoid accumulating other debt along the way. Save for larger purchases. Your bedroom purchase may have been premature, but you needed some basics. But check your contract. Since many 0% furniture loan deals retroactively charge interest if you don't pay them off in full - you might want to make regular payments, and pay the debt off a month early (avoid any 'gotcha's). You might want to open a retirement account - many folks recommend a Roth account for folks your age - it is after tax, but you don't pay tax when you withdraw money. Roth is better when you have lots of deductions (think mortgage, kids). But some retirement account would be great to get started. Open a credit union account (if you can), that will make getting a credit card or personal loan (installment) easier. You want to build a credit file, but you don't want credit card debt (seems contradictory), so opening 2 credit cards over the next year will help your credit. You want a good credit mix (student loans, revolving, installment, and mortgage - wait on that one).\""
},
{
"docid": "157728",
"title": "",
"text": "A common rule of thumb is the 28/36 ratio. It's described here. In your case, with a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that means that you should spend no more than 28% of it, or £1,167 per month on housing. You may be able to swing a bit more because you have no debts and a modest amount in your savings. The 36% part comes in as the amount you can spend servicing all your debt, including mortgage. In your case, based on a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that'd be £1,500 per month. Again, that is to cover your housing costs and any additional debt you are servicing. So, you need to figure out how much you could bring in through rent to make up the rest. As at least one other person has commented, the rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5 - 3 times your income. I personally think you are not a good candidate for a mortgage of the size you are discussing. That said, I no longer live in England. If you could feel fairly secure getting someone to pay you enough in rent to bring down your total mortgage and loan repayment amounts to £1,500 or so a month, you may want to consider it. Remember, though, that it may not always be easy to find renters."
},
{
"docid": "63698",
"title": "",
"text": "I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money. I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing. Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house. I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment. Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation. Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result. Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead."
},
{
"docid": "187739",
"title": "",
"text": "Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt."
},
{
"docid": "79892",
"title": "",
"text": "My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high."
},
{
"docid": "180192",
"title": "",
"text": "I also am paying roughly twice as much in rent as a mortgage payment would be on the type of house I have been looking at, so I'd really like to purchase a house if possible. Sounds like I need to rain on your parade a bit: there's a lot more to owning a house than the mortgage. Property tax, insurance, PMI, and maintenance are things that throw this off. You'll also be paying more interest than normal given your recent credit history. It's still possible that buying is better than renting, but one really should run the detailed math on this. For example, looking at houses around where I live, insurance, property tax and special assessments over the course of a year roughly equal the mortgage payments annually. You probably won't be able to get a loan just yet. If you've just started your new job it will take a while to build a documentable income history sufficient for lenders. But take heart! As you take the next year to save up a down payment / build up an emergency fund you'll discover that credit score improves with time. However, it's crucial that you don't do anything to mess with the score. Pay all your bills on time. Don't take out a car loan. Don't close your old revolving accounts. But most of all, don't worry. Rent hurts (I rent too) but in many parts of the US owning hurts more, as your property values fall. A house down the street from my dear old mother has been on the market for several months at a price 33 percent lower than her most recent appraisals. I'm comfortable waiting until markets stabilize / start rising before jumping on real estate."
},
{
"docid": "596111",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you, I would rent. Wait to buy a home. Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects. See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment. Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: \"\"we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.\"\" A home is a big financial commitment. If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble. If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home. I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so. It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet. You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong. (See comments for more explanation.) Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now. And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you. Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move \"\"ASAP.\"\" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house. To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance. These are large payments that are only due once a year. The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid. So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account). Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account.\""
},
{
"docid": "216384",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Having convinced myself that there is no point of paying someone's else mortgage Somewhat rhetorical this many years later, but I expect some other kid forcefed the obsession with propping up the housing market might be repeating the nonsense about \"\"paying someone else's mortgage\"\" and read this. Will you be buying your own farm to grow your own food, or are you happy with people using the money you spend on food for a mortgage? How about clothes? Will you be weaving your own clothes because you don't want money you spend on clothes to pay someone else's mortgage? What's special about the money you pay for rent that you get annoyed at how someone else spends it? Don't get a mortgage just because you don't like the idea of how other people might spend the money that's no longer yours after you pay them with it. As an aside, at your age with your income and no debt, you could be sensibly investing a lot of money. If you did that for five years, you'd be in a much better position that you would be tying yourself to whatever current scheme the UK is using to desperately prop up house prices.\""
},
{
"docid": "342210",
"title": "",
"text": "Do you have any other debt besides your mortgage such as credit card debt, student loans, or a car payment? Unless those are lower interest than your mortgage, pay them off first. There are a lot of other considerations besides just mortgage and emergency fund. Do you have some money for the things in life that happen - car repairs, unexpected medical bills, your next vehicle purchase, and the eventual replacing of those big ticket items in your home that will break eventually? A bit of savings towards each of those each month is not a bad idea. Then there is your retirement. Are you on track to make enough to support yourself in retirement plus pay for the cost of health care as it applies in your country (more in some countries, less in others)? There is also the cost of higher education for your children if you have any or are planning on having any. If so, were you planning on contributing to their higher eduction? Do you have a savings plan in place for that? Paying off the house is a great thing to do - in my mind it's great even if it reduces your mortgage deduction, although others disagree. It's just not the number one financial priority anyone should have."
},
{
"docid": "235415",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Congratulations on earning a great income. However, you have a lot of debt and very high living expenses. This will eat all of your income if you don't get a hold of it now. I have a few recommendations for you. At the beginning of each month, write down your income, and write down all your expenses for the month. Include everything: rent, food, utilities, entertainment, transportation, loan payments, etc. After you've made this plan for the month, don't spend any money that's not in the plan. You are allowed to change the plan, but you can't spend more than your income. Budgeting software, such as YNAB, will make this easier. You are $51,000 in debt. That is a lot. A large portion of your monthly budget is loan payments. I recommend that you knock those out as fast as possible. The interest on these loans makes the debt continue to grow the longer you hold them, which means that if you take your time paying these off, you'll be spending much more than $51k on your debt. Minimize that number and get rid of them as fast as possible. Because you want to get rid of the debt emergency as fast as possible, you should reduce your spending as much as you can and pay as much as you can toward the debt. Pay off that furniture first (the interest rate on that \"\"free money\"\" is going to skyrocket the first time you are late with a payment), then attack the student loans. Stay home and cook your own meals as much as possible. You may want to consider moving someplace cheaper. The rent you are paying is not out of line with your income, but New York is a very expensive place to live in general. Moving might help you reduce your expenses. I hope you realize at this point that it was pretty silly of you to borrow $4k for a new bedroom set while you were $47k in debt. You referred to your low-interest loans as \"\"free money,\"\" but they really aren't. They all need to be paid back. Ask yourself: If you had forced yourself to save up $4k before buying the furniture, would you still have purchased the furniture, or would you have instead bought a used set on Craigslist for $200? This is the reason that furniture stores offer 0% interest loans. They got you to buy something that you couldn't afford. Don't take the bait again. You didn't mention credit cards, so I hope that means that you don't owe any money on credit cards. If you do, then you need to start thinking of that as debt, and add that to your debt emergency. If you do use a credit card, commit to only charging what you already have in the bank and paying off the card in full every month. YNAB can make this easier. $50/hr and $90k per year are fairly close to each other when you factor in vacation and holidays. That is not including other benefits, so any other benefits put the salaried position ahead. You said that you have a few more years on your parents' health coverage, but there is no need to wait until the last minute to get your own coverage. Health insurance is a huge benefit. Also, in general, I would say that salaried positions have better job security. (This is no guarantee, of course. Anyone can get laid off. But, as a contractor, they could tell you not to come in tomorrow, and you'd be done. Salaried employees are usually given notice, severance pay, etc.) if I were you, I would take the salaried position. Investing is important, but so is eliminating this debt emergency. If you take the salaried position, one of your new benefits will be a retirement program. You can take advantage of that, especially if the company is kicking in some money. (This actually is \"\"free money.\"\") But in my opinion, if you treat the debt as an emergency and commit to eliminating it as fast as possible, you should minimize your investing at this point, if it helps you get out of debt faster. After you get out of debt, investing should be one of your major goals. Now, while you are young and have few commitments, is the best time to learn to live on a budget and eliminate your debt. This will set you up for success in the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "353186",
"title": "",
"text": "Should I use the money to pay off student loans and future grad expenses for me? Yes. The main drawback to student loans is that they cannot be gotten rid of except by paying them off (other than extreme circumstances such as death or complete disability). A mortgage, car loan, or other collateralized loans can be dealt with by selling the underlying collateral. Credit card loans can be discharged in bankruptcy. Stop borrowing for college, pay for it in cash, then decide what to do with the rest. Make sure you have a comfortable amount saved for emergencies in a completely liquid account (not a retirement account or CDs), and continue to pay off with the rest. You might also consider putting some away for your kids' college, so I want to get my older son into a private middle school for 2 years. They have a hardy endowment and may offer us a decent need based scholarship if we look worthy on paper I have a hard time getting behind this plan with a 238K mortgage. If you want to apply for scholarships that's great - but don't finagle your finances to look like you're poor when you have a quarter-million-dollar house. If you want to save some for private school then do that out of what you have. Otherwise either rearrange your priorities so you can afford it or private school might not be in the cards for you. That said- while it was a blessing to be able to pay off the second mortgage and credit cards, your hesitancy to pay off the student loans makes me wonder if you will start living within your means after the loans are paid off. My concern is that your current spending levels that got you in this much debt in the first place will put you back in debt in the near future, and you won't have another inheritance to help pull you out. I know that wasn't your question, but I felt like I needed to add that to my answer as well."
},
{
"docid": "375537",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your post has some assumptions that are not, or may not be true. For one the assumption is that you have to wait 7 years after you settle your debts to buy a home. That is not the case. For some people (me included) settling an charged off debt was part of my mortgage application process. It was a small debt that a doctor's office claimed I owed, but I didn't. The mortgage company told me, settling the debt was \"\"the cost of doing business\"\". Settling your debts can be looked as favorable. Option 1, in my opinion is akin to stealing. You borrowed the money and you are seeking to game the system by not paying your debts. Would you want someone to do that to you? IIRC the debt can be sold to another company, and the time period is refreshed and can stay on your credit report for beyond the 7 years. I could be wrong, but I feel like there is a way for potential lenders to see unresolved accounts well beyond specified time periods. After all, the lenders are the credit reporting agencies customers and they seek to provide the most accurate view of a potential lender. With 20K of unresolved CC debt they should point that out to their customers. Option 2: Do you have 20K? I'd still seek to settle, you do not have to wait 7 years. Your home may not appreciate in 2 years. In my own case my home has appricated very little in the 11 years that I have owned it. Many people have learned the hard way that homes do not necessarily increase in value. It is very possible that you may have a net loss in equity in two years. Repairs or improvements can evaporate the small amount of equity that is achieved over two years with a 30 year mortgage. I would hope that you pause a bit at the fact that you defaulted on 20K in debt. That is a lot of money. Although it is a lot, it is a small amount in comparison to the cost and maintenance of a home. Are you prepared to handle such a responsibility? What has changed in your personality since the 20K default? The tone of your posts suggests you are headed for the same sort of calamity. This is far more than a numbers game it is behavioral.\""
},
{
"docid": "76257",
"title": "",
"text": "I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in my country. For the cost of less than half the down payment my spouse and I have saved up for a house we could easily buy a home in most of the lower cost of living areas (and several homes in, say, Detroit). As for the rest of your question, though, we've chosen not to live that way. Because, like all high cost of living areas, ours is near a city there are more free and inexpensive things to do than you would think at first. While others in our area think a great time is pre-gaming drinks at a nice bar, an expensive restaurant, then some more drinks we've taught ourselves how to make great meals from scratch using sale and inexpensive ingredients from the grocery store and often do that on weekends, topped off by a movie from the redbox that we promptly return the next day. We have chosen friends who will hang out with us over potluck dinners and board games instead of out on the town. On weekend days we visit free museums, do hikes, wander around revitalized downtown strips, or play at the local parks. Our groceries, as I mentioned, are sale items or use coupons and we go for less expensive meats and produce. We visit our local farmer's market for fun, not to buy the expensive produce. We might find ourselves wandering through the mall to window shop, but when it comes time to actually buy clothing or goods for the apartment we shop around for up to months to find a good deal. Plenty of our friends have money enough to spend, and the most debt they are usually wallowing in is a big car payment, no consumer debt. At the same time I have trouble imagining some of them buying a house any time soon, because they simply can't be saving all that much (since I know their incomes). They may eventually be able to afford a condo and ride rising housing prices to a townhome and then a house - it's what lots of people do around here, loosing buckets money in realtor fees and closing costs along the way. Even with these choices, it's hard to view my friends as selfish knowing that most of them give around 10% of their income to charity. There are probably plenty of people around here swimming in debt (somebody recently asked in a Q&A with the local paper editors how she could stop going to the city's most expensive restaurants and start living within her means when she only liked expensive places), but lots of folks can stretch themselves and afford to get by while wasting a lot of money. It's not what my spouse and I have chosen to do, because we want to be able to live very responsibly and plan for a rainy day, but the longer you live with and around the money that tends to permeate high cost of living areas, the more it will seem normal to you. Also, if it's really $1000/mo for a 2 br. apartment, your cost of living is still lower than mine is. If I were you I wouldn't try to acclimate myself to the spendy habits of your surroundings. Instead I'd find friends who are frugal and work on maintaining your good financial habits. If you ever want one of those $4, $5, or $6K (plus!) houses, you're going to need them."
}
] |
6612 | If I have a lot of debt and the housing market is rising, should I rent and slowly pay off my debt or buy and roll the debt into a mortgage? | [
{
"docid": "322900",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Buy and Hope is a common investment strategy. It's also one that will keep you poor. Instead of thinking about saving money to put against a credit card or line of credit using your own job and hard-earned dollars, why not use someone else's money? If you have enough of a down payment for a property of your own, consider a duplex, triplex, or 4-plex where you live in one of the units. Since you will be living there you only need 5% down as opposed to 20% down if you do not live there. This arrangement gives you a place to live while you have other people paying your mortgage and other debts. If done properly, you can find a place that is cash-flow positive so you basically live rent-free. This all assumes you have a down payment and a bank that will work with you. Your best bet is to discuss your situation with a mortgage broker. They know all the rules, and which banks have the best deal for you. A mortgage broker works on your behalf and is paid by the lending institution, not you. There are various caveats with this strategy, and they all revolve around knowing what to do and how to execute the plan. I suggest Googling Robert Kiyosaki and reading \"\"Rich Dad Poor Dad\"\" before taking this journey. He offers a number of free and paid seminars that teach people how to purchase real estate and make it pay. I have taken the free evening seminar and the $500 weekend seminar on how to purchase properties and make money with them. Note that I have no affiliation with Kiyosaki, and I do find his methods to work.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "574684",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can see why you are feeling financial stress. If I understand right you have put yourself in a very uncomfortable and unsustainable situation and one that should indeed be very stressful for a person of your age. I feel a lot of stress just reading over your question. I'm going to be very frank. Your financial situation suggests that you have very aggressively taken wealth from your future self in order to consume and to make inefficient investments. Well, look in the mirror and say to yourself \"\"I am now my future self and it is time to pay for my past decisions.\"\" Don't take money out of your IRA. That would be continuing the behavior as it is a very inefficient use of your resources that will lead to yet more extreme poverty down the line. Ok, you can't take back what you have done in the past. What to do now? Major life restructuring. If I were you, I'd sell my house if I had one. Move in with one of your kids if you have any nearby. If not, move into the cheapest trailer you can find. Take a second job. Very seriously look to see if you can get a job that pays more for your primary job--I know you love your current job but you simply cannot continue as you are now. Start eating really cheap food and buying clothes at thrift stores. Throw everything you can at your debts, starting with the ones with the highest interest rate. Plan now to continue working long after your peers have retired. Early in life is the time to be borrowing. Middle age is when you should be finishing paying off any remaining debts and tucking away like crazy for retirement. Now is not an OK time to be taking on additional debt to fund consumption. I know changing your life is going to be very uncomfortable, but I think you will find that there is more peace of mind in having some amount of financial security (which for you will require a LOT of changes) than in borrowing ever more to fund a lifestyle you cannot sustain.\""
},
{
"docid": "343917",
"title": "",
"text": "The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it."
},
{
"docid": "102155",
"title": "",
"text": "The house becomes an asset belonging to the estate of Alice. The debt also goes with the estate. The executor of the will should arrange for the debt to be paid off as part of sorting out the estate - they can't just hand out all the assets and leave nothing to pay off the debts. This could be done by selling the house. But in practice, the executor and the mortgage lender may both be happy if Bob takes out a mortgage, uses that to pay the debt, then inherits the house."
},
{
"docid": "295246",
"title": "",
"text": "First off, very sorry for your loss. I lost my father a few years ago and I know it can be tough. My father also had a lot of credit card debt. They attempted to collect the debt from my mother, who was no longer on the account (for over a decade). It was just an attempt to recoup as much money as they could before dealing with a probate court. As others have said, it depends on your state law. You will want to talk to a lawyer, figure out who is going to be the executor of the estate, and determine the next steps in starting to settle debts that your father had. If you want to take possession of the house, then you will likely need to work with the executor and perhaps purchase the house from the estate (which would then use the money to pay off debts)."
},
{
"docid": "393002",
"title": "",
"text": "Easy answer -- pay down your debt. Why easy? Because you can't afford the house. The other posters mentioned it; I'll tackle it too: Your $1445/month mortgage payment estimation is just that - mortgage only. Why haven't you included home insurance or taxes? According to that last graphic, those are $1930 and $1910 per year. That adds $320 to your monthly cost. $1445 + $320 = $1765/month. More than what you're paying in rent, and you say you have little enough left over after that. And that's not counting CMHC insurance like Chris W. Rea mentioned, or maintenance, which is something renters always underestimate. I know I did. And don't even get me started on the fact that the (currently super low) interest rate is fixed for only 5 years. I know you really, really want to buy a house, and you really want to stay in that expensive area you live in. And you're trying hard to make the numbers work. But the fact is, you're setting yourself up for bankruptcy. Realistically, you have these options: 1) stay in the area, forget buying for the foreseeable future, continue renting, pay down debt and then save for a proper down payment 2) stay in the area, but make a smaller, cheaper place work 3) move to a cheaper location 4) figure out how to make more money. That's it. Sorry to be blunt; this is the reality."
},
{
"docid": "443852",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Short answer: NO. Do NOT buy a house. Houses are a \"\"luxury\"\" good (see Why is a house not an investment?). Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment. Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them. Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional. I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts. Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible. Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less. Your kids do not need separate bedrooms. Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority. You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "79892",
"title": "",
"text": "My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high."
},
{
"docid": "14083",
"title": "",
"text": "\"A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the \"\"renter\"\" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the \"\"landlord,\"\" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a \"\"lot\"\" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your \"\"rent\"\" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have \"\"portable equity\"\" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will \"\"get lucky\"\" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because \"\"sky rockets\"\" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house.\""
},
{
"docid": "477907",
"title": "",
"text": "In general, saving money should be prioritized over extra debt payments. Every dollar that you spend paying down a debt will decrease the amount of principal owed; this will directly decrease the future interest payments you will make. However, as time goes on, you are dealing with a smaller and smaller set of principal; additionally, it is assumed that your income will grow (or at least keep pace with inflation), making the debt more bearable. On the other hand, every dollar you save (or invest) now will increase your future income - also making the future debt more bearable. Not only that, but the longer you save, the more value to you get from having saved, meaning you should save as early as possible. Finally, the benefits of paying down the mortgage early end when the mortgage is completely paid off, while the benefits of saving will continue (and even grow) after the house is owned free and clear. That is, if you have an extra $100,000 to put into the mortgage during the life of the loan, you could sink that into the mortgage and see it disappear, or you could invest it, and reap the dividends for the rest of your life. Caveat emptor: behavior trumps numbers. This only works if you will actually be disciplined about saving the extra money rather than paying off debt. If you're the kind of person for whom money burns a hole in your pocket until you spend it, then use it on debt. But if you are able to save and invest that money, you will be better off in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "277664",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\""
},
{
"docid": "1472",
"title": "",
"text": "\"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt. Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house. You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset. This is what is known as \"\"good\"\" debt. Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income. An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt. This is know as \"\"bad\"\" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always \"\"good\"\" debt because the house stands good for it though. The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your \"\"good\"\" debt is \"\"bad\"\" debt (or no longer secured). Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value. It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down. This is the problem with the term \"\"good\"\" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan. Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the \"\"good\"\" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house. Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay. So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW. Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, \"\"good\"\" \"\"bad\"\" \"\"unsecured\"\" \"\"secured\"\", I think that less debt is better than more debt. There is definitely such a thing as too much \"\"good\"\" debt!\""
},
{
"docid": "242008",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First off, your commitment to paying down debt and apparent strong relationship with your brother is admirable. However, I think you are overcomplicating your situation and potentially endangering your relationship by attempting to combine debts in this way. You could consider a simple example where you have interest bearing at 5% and your brother has interest bearing debt at 10%. If you both pay down his higher interest debt first, and then both pay down your debt after, then clearly you will have paid less interest combined. But, by waiting to pay off your debt until later, you have accrued more interest yourself. So who has saved money by doing this? Your brother. You will have paid (let's say, without getting into balances) $50 extra interest to save your brother $70 in interest. So why would you want to give your brother $50? Total interest savings between both of you in this simplified example are $20. So, in theory your brother could pay you $60 after the fact, effectively meaning you end up $10 ahead, and your brother ends up $10 ahead. Here, you end up in a position where you could still say, in theory 'we both came out ahead'. But what if your brother loses his job while you're both paying off your debt, and he can't help any more? Does he accrue some type of calculated interest until he pays you back? What if he's off work for 2 years and still owes you 30k? What if he just never makes his payments to you on time? At what point do you resent your brother for failing to uphold his end of the deal? Money and friends don't mix. Money and family mixes even worse. In rare circumstances where you absolutely must mix family and money, get everything in writing. Get it signed, make it legal. Outline all details of the transaction, including interest rates, and examples of how the balances calculate. In 5 years when things go haywire, following the letter of the law is what will keep you from becoming enemies. But with family, often people have an expectation that \"\"while we agreed I would pay x, he's my brother, so he should take pity on me and allow me to pay only y, if I need to\"\". Finally, to your question about how to calculate amounts to pay: it will be very complicated. You will need to track minimum balance payments, interest rates, and even potentially the lost income which one of you gives up to pay down the other's debt. You could do these things in a simplified way close to what I've set out above, but then ultimately one of you will lose out. If you pay down your debts first, how can you calculate the lost living potential for your brother, who might want to buy a house but can't save for a down payment for an extra year? What if he has to move, and without sufficient down payment, he needs to pay extra Mortgage Insurance on his loan from the bank? Will you compensate him for that? My recommendation, if you haven't caught it yet, is Do not do this. Your potential savings are not going to be worth the potential heartache of breaking your relationship with your brother. Instead, look at joining your minds, not your money. Set goals for yourselves individually, and hold each other accountable. Make this an open conversation between yourselves, as it can be difficult to talk about finances with other people. Your support will help the other person, and hopefully help keep you on track as well. To provide numerical context for potential savings, which you appear to still want, consider the numbers you've provided [you have 40k debt at 10%, your brother has 20k of debt at 5%]. Let's assume you each can pay up to 20k against the principal of your loans each year. Finally assume for simplicity that you also have enough to pay off interest as it gets charged [so no compounding], and you pay in even instalments each year. Mathematically that means your interest each year is equal to your interest rate * your average annual balance. If you each go alone, then you will accrue 10% on an average balance of [(40k+20k)/2] = 30k per year, which equals 3,000 in interest in year 1, then [(20k+0)/2] = 10k * .10 = 1,000 interest in year 2. Total interest for you = 4,000. Your brother will accrue [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 = 500 in interest in total. Total interest for both of you combined would be 4,500. If you pool your debt snowball, then you will clear your debt first. So the interest on your debt would be [(40k+0k)/2] = 20k * .1 = 2,000. Your brother's debt would fully accrue 5% of interest on the full balance in year 1, so interest in year 1 would be 20k * .05 = 1,000. In year 2, your brother's debt would be cleared half way through the year; interest charged would be [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 * 50% = 250. You would then owe your brother 10k, which you would pay him over the remainder of year 2. His total interest paid to the bank would be 1,000 + 250 = 1,250. Total interest for both of you combined would be 3,250. In a simplified payment example using your numbers, maximum interest savings would be about $1,250 combined. How you allocate those savings would be pretty subjective; assuming a 50:50 split, this yields $625 in savings to each of you. If you aren't able to each save 20k per year, then savings would be greater for snowballing, because otherwise it will take you even longer to pay off your high interest debt. This is similar to your brother loaning you 20k today that you can use to pay off your debts, after which you pay him back so he can pay off his. Because you will owe him 20k for 2 years, but an average of ~10k at any one time [because he slowly advances it to you today, and you slowly pay him back until the end of year 2], at $650 in benefit passed to your brother, this is roughly equivalent to him loaning you money at 6.5% interest.\""
},
{
"docid": "163532",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There are two things I would like to add. By no means am I an expert on this, so please call me out if you spot a mistake. > Economic contraction scared people. So instead of continuing making promises, they started paying off the promises they had Every true.... **expect** this didn't cause the ball to stop rolling so much as it stopped the ball from rolling a little sooner than it otherwise would have. As pointed out in the comments above, money is debt and with debt (in the system we've chosen to adopt) comes interest. That means that new money **must** be created in order for old money to be repaid. Which leads to a need for perpetual growth. And perpetual growth is unsustainable. Pure and simple, it doesn't exist. So yeah, people got a fright and that put the brakes on the economy, but it was going to happen eventually. > People paying off debt is fine so long as there is sill money for services, and people paying for service is fine *so long as they don't rack up more debt than they can pay*. As explained above, this is a fallacy because our monetary system literally requires that people aren't responsible when it comes to debt. Eventually we'll get to a stage the vast majority of people have taken on as much debt as they can logically support, at which point they would need to take on even more debt in order to service the debt that already exists. It's either that or the money supply contracts and you have a recession. It always disgusts me when I hear people saying things like \"\"they should known better\"\" or \"\"this is what you get for not handling your finances correctly\"\" when describing people that get into debt issues. The system literally depends on people acting like idiots and taking on more debt than they can support. It's also a reason why you can't really blame Wall Street for what happened - even though they did some messed up things, they were just playing by the rules of the game.\""
},
{
"docid": "76257",
"title": "",
"text": "I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in my country. For the cost of less than half the down payment my spouse and I have saved up for a house we could easily buy a home in most of the lower cost of living areas (and several homes in, say, Detroit). As for the rest of your question, though, we've chosen not to live that way. Because, like all high cost of living areas, ours is near a city there are more free and inexpensive things to do than you would think at first. While others in our area think a great time is pre-gaming drinks at a nice bar, an expensive restaurant, then some more drinks we've taught ourselves how to make great meals from scratch using sale and inexpensive ingredients from the grocery store and often do that on weekends, topped off by a movie from the redbox that we promptly return the next day. We have chosen friends who will hang out with us over potluck dinners and board games instead of out on the town. On weekend days we visit free museums, do hikes, wander around revitalized downtown strips, or play at the local parks. Our groceries, as I mentioned, are sale items or use coupons and we go for less expensive meats and produce. We visit our local farmer's market for fun, not to buy the expensive produce. We might find ourselves wandering through the mall to window shop, but when it comes time to actually buy clothing or goods for the apartment we shop around for up to months to find a good deal. Plenty of our friends have money enough to spend, and the most debt they are usually wallowing in is a big car payment, no consumer debt. At the same time I have trouble imagining some of them buying a house any time soon, because they simply can't be saving all that much (since I know their incomes). They may eventually be able to afford a condo and ride rising housing prices to a townhome and then a house - it's what lots of people do around here, loosing buckets money in realtor fees and closing costs along the way. Even with these choices, it's hard to view my friends as selfish knowing that most of them give around 10% of their income to charity. There are probably plenty of people around here swimming in debt (somebody recently asked in a Q&A with the local paper editors how she could stop going to the city's most expensive restaurants and start living within her means when she only liked expensive places), but lots of folks can stretch themselves and afford to get by while wasting a lot of money. It's not what my spouse and I have chosen to do, because we want to be able to live very responsibly and plan for a rainy day, but the longer you live with and around the money that tends to permeate high cost of living areas, the more it will seem normal to you. Also, if it's really $1000/mo for a 2 br. apartment, your cost of living is still lower than mine is. If I were you I wouldn't try to acclimate myself to the spendy habits of your surroundings. Instead I'd find friends who are frugal and work on maintaining your good financial habits. If you ever want one of those $4, $5, or $6K (plus!) houses, you're going to need them."
},
{
"docid": "192540",
"title": "",
"text": "\"My suggestion would be to do the math. That is the best advice you can get when considering any investment. There are other factors you haven't considered, too... like the fact that interest rates are at extremely low levels right now, so borrowing money is relatively cheap. If you're outside the US though, that may be less of a consideration as the mortgage lending institutions in Europe only tend to give 5-year locks on loan rates without requiring a premium. You may be somewhere else in the world. You will probably struggle to do the actual math about the probability of the market going down or up, but what you can do is this: Figure out what it would cost you to cash out the investments. You say your balance is $53,000 in various items. (Congrats! That's a nice chunk of money.) But with commissions and taxes and etc., it may reduce the value of your investments by 10% - 25% when you try to cash out those investments. Paying $3,000 to get that money out of the investments is one thing... but if you're sending $10,000 to the tax man when you sell this all off, that changes the economics of your investments a LOT. In that case you might be better off seeing what happens if the markets correct by 10%... you'd still have more than if you sold out and paid major taxes. Once you know your down payment, calculate the amount of property you could afford. You know your down payment could be somewhere around $50,000 after taxes and other items... At an 80:20 loan-to-value ratio that's about $250,000 of a property that you can qualify for, assuming you could obtain the loan for $200,000. What could you buy for that? Do some shopping and figure out what your options are... Once you have two or three potential properties, figure out the answer to \"\"What would the property give you?\"\" Is it going to be rented out? Are you going to live there? Both? If you're living in it, then you come out ahead if the costs for the mortgage debt and the ongoing maintenance and repairs are less than what you currently pay in rent. Figure out what you pay right now to put a roof over your head. Will the place you could buy need repairs? Will you pay more on a mortgage for $200,000 USD (in your local currency) than what you currently do for housing? Don't even factor in the possible appreciation of a house you inhabit when you're making this kind of investment decision... it could just as easily burn down as go up in value. If you would rent it, what kind of rental would that be? Long-term rental? Expect to pay for other people to break your stuff. Short-term rental? You can collect more money per tenant per day, but you'll end up with higher vacancy rates. And people still break your stuff. But do the math and see if you could collect enough in rent from a tenant (person or business or whatever the properties are you could buy) to cover the amount you are paying in debt, plus what you would pay in taxes (rent is income), plus what you would need for maintenance, plus insurance. IF the numbers make sense, then real estate can be a phenomenally lucrative investment. I own some investment properties myself. It is a great hedge against inflation (you can raise rents when contracts lapse... usually) and it is an excellent way to own a tangible item. But if you don't know the numbers and exactly how it would make you better off than sitting and hoping that the markets go up, because they generally do over time, then don't take the jump.\""
},
{
"docid": "317945",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Whether or not you choose to buy is a complicated question. I will answer as \"\"what you should consider/think about\"\" as I don't think \"\"What should I do\"\" is on topic. First off, renting tends to look expensive compared to mortgages until you factor in the other costs that are included in your rent. Property taxes. These are a few grand a year even in the worst areas, and tend to be more. Find out what the taxes are ahead of time. Even though you can often deduct them (and your interest), you're giving up your standard deduction to do so - and with the low interest regime currently, unless your taxes are high you may not end up being better off deducting them. Home insurance. This depends on home and area, but is at least hundreds of dollars per year, and could easily run a thousand. So another hundred a month on your bill (and it's more than renter's insurance by quite a lot). Upkeep costs for the property. You've got a lot of up-front costs (buy a lawnmower, etc. types of things) plus a lot of ongoing costs (general repair, plumbing breaks, electrical breaks, whatnot). Sales commission, as Scott notes in comments. When you sell, you're paying about 6% commission; so you won't be above water, if housing prices stay flat, until you've paid off 6% of your loan value (plus closing costs, another couple of percent). You hit the 90% point on a 15 year about year 2, but on a 30 year you don't hit it until about year 5, so you might not be above water when you want to sell. Risk of decrease in value. Whenever you buy property, you take on the risk of losing value as well as the potential of gaining value. Don't assume that because prices are going up they will continue to; remember that a lot of investors are well aware of possible profits from rising prices and will be buying (and driving prices up) themselves. 2008 was a shock to a lot of people, even in areas where it seemed like prices should've still gone up; you never know what's going to happen. If you buy a house for 20% or so down, you have a bit of a safety net (if it drops 10-20% in value, you're still above water, though you do of course lose money), while if you buy it for 0% down and it drops 20% in value, you won't be able to sell (at all) for years. All that together means you should really take a hard look at the costs and benefits, make a realistic calculation including all actual costs, and then make a decision. I would not buy simply because it seems like a good idea to not pay rent. If you're unable to make any down payment, then you're also unable to deal with the risks in home ownership - not just decrease in value, but when your pipe bursts and ruins your basement, or when the roof needs a replacement because a tree falls on it. Yes, home insurance helps, but not always, and the deductible will still get you. Just to have some numbers: For my area, we pay about $8000 a year in property taxes on a $280k house ($200k mortgage), $1k a year in home insurance, so our escrow payment is about $750 a month. A 15 year for $200k is about $1400 a month, so $2200 or so total cost. We do live in a high property tax area, so someone in lower tax regimes would pay less - say 1800-1900 - but not that cheap. A 30 year would save you 500 or so a month, but you're still not all that much lower than rent.\""
},
{
"docid": "28230",
"title": "",
"text": "I am answering this in light of the OP mentioning the desire to buy a house. A proper mortgage uses debt to income ratios. Typically 28/36 which means 28% of monthly gross can go toward PITI (principal, interest, tax, insurance) and the total debt can go as high as 36% including credit cards and car payment etc. So, if you earn $5000/mo (for easy math) the 8% gap (between 28 and 36) is $400. If you have zero debt, they don't let you use it for the mortgage, it's just ignored. So a low interest long term student loan should not be accelerated if you are planning to buy a house, better put that money to the down payment. But for credit cards, the $400/mo carries $8000 (banks treat it as though the payment is 5% of debt owed). So, I'd attack that debt with a vengeance. No eating out, no movies, beer, etc. Pay it off as if your life depended on it, and you'll be happier in the long run."
},
{
"docid": "157728",
"title": "",
"text": "A common rule of thumb is the 28/36 ratio. It's described here. In your case, with a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that means that you should spend no more than 28% of it, or £1,167 per month on housing. You may be able to swing a bit more because you have no debts and a modest amount in your savings. The 36% part comes in as the amount you can spend servicing all your debt, including mortgage. In your case, based on a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that'd be £1,500 per month. Again, that is to cover your housing costs and any additional debt you are servicing. So, you need to figure out how much you could bring in through rent to make up the rest. As at least one other person has commented, the rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5 - 3 times your income. I personally think you are not a good candidate for a mortgage of the size you are discussing. That said, I no longer live in England. If you could feel fairly secure getting someone to pay you enough in rent to bring down your total mortgage and loan repayment amounts to £1,500 or so a month, you may want to consider it. Remember, though, that it may not always be easy to find renters."
},
{
"docid": "339365",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is somewhat unbelievable. I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts? Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay. Would you want to service that client? This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit? If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries. I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue. This has to be certified/return receipt requested. If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit. I would do this with a money order or cashiers check. Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response. This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker. This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional: Sue the company in small claims court. This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit. There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this. Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score. A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850. Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life, over 820. Do you know how I did it? I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything. So why does it matter? It is a bit ridiculous.\""
}
] |
6625 | What does a high theta mean for an option position? | [
{
"docid": "88892",
"title": "",
"text": "Option prices consist of two parts: the intrinsic value (the difference between the strike and the current price of the stock) and a time premium, representing the probability that the stock will end up above the strike for a call (or below for a put). All else being equal, options decline in value as time passes, since there is less uncertainty about the expected value of the stock at expiration and thus the time premium is smaller. Theta is the measure of the change in value in one day. So for every day that passes, the calls you sold are going down by $64.71 (which is positive to you since you sold them at a higher value) and the calls you sold are going down by $49.04. So your position (a short spread) is gaining $15.67 each day (assuming no change in stock price or volatility). In reality, the stock price and volatility also change every day, and those are much stronger drivers of the value of your options. In your case, however, the options are deep out of the money, meaning it's very likely that they'll expire worthless, so all you have left is time premium, which is decaying as time goes on."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "538518",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I am not familiar with this broker, but I believe this is what is going on: When entering combination orders (in this case the purchase of stocks and the writing of a call), it does not make sense to set a limit price on the two \"\"legs\"\" of the order separately. In that case it may be possible that one order gets executed, but the other not, for example. Instead you can specify the total amount you are willing to pay (net debit) or receive (net credit) per item. For this particular choice of a \"\"buy and write\"\" strategy, a net credit does not make sense as JoeTaxpayer has explained. Hence if you would choose this option, the order would never get executed. For some combinations of options it does make sense however. It is perhaps also good to see where the max gain numbers come from. In the first case, the gain would be maximal if the stock rises to the strike of the call or higher. In that case you would be payed out $2,50 * 100 = $250, but you have paid $1,41*100 for the combination, hence this leaves a profit of $109 (disregarding transaction fees). In the other case you would have been paid $1,41 for the position. Hence in that case the total profit would be ($1,41+$2,50)*100 = $391. But as said, such an order would not be executed. By the way, note that in your screenshot the bid is at 0, so writing a call would not earn you anything at all.\""
},
{
"docid": "235522",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It is important to distinguish between cause and effect as well as the supply (saving) versus demand (borrowing) side of money to understand the relationship between interest rates, bond yields, and inflation. What is mean by \"\"interest rates\"\" is usually based on the officially published rates determined by the central bank and is referenced to the overnight lending rate for meeting reserve requirements. In practice, what the means is, (for example) in the United States the Federal Reserve will have periodic meetings to determine whether to leave this rate alone or to raise or lower the rate. The new rate is generally determined by their assessment of current and forecast national and global economic conditions and factors in the votes of the various Regional Federal Reserve Presidents. If the Fed anticipates economic weakness they will tend to lower and keep rates lower, while when the economy seems to be overheated the tendency will be to raise rates. Bond yields are also based on the expectation of future economic conditions, but as determined by market participants. At times the market will actually \"\"lead\"\" the Fed in bidding bond prices up or down, while at other times it will react after the Fed does. However, ignoring the varying time lag the two generally will track each other because they are really the same thing. The only difference is the participants which are collectively determining what the rates/yields are. The inverse relationship between interest rates and inflation is the main reason for fluctuating rates in the first place. The Fed will tend to raise rates to try to slow inflation, and lower rates when it feels inflation is too low and economic growth should be stimulated. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly there is both little inflationary pressure (driving interest rates down both in terms of what savers can accept to keep ahead of inflation and at) and depressed levels of borrowing (reduced demand for money, driving down rates to try to balance supply and demand), and the opposite is true when the economy is booming. Bond yields are thus positively correlated to inflation because during periods of high inflation savers won't want to invest in bonds that don't provide them with an acceptable inflation adjusted yield. But high interest rates tend to have the effect or reining in inflation because it gets more costly for borrowers and thus puts a damper on new economic activity. So to summarize,\""
},
{
"docid": "249429",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The entire idea of accountability in America has been in serious decline over the years. Not to get on my high horse and preach, but this issue begins early on with child care and has branched it's way into our economics as well. Kids get 9th place ribbons for races with 9 racers. Young post-college adults are struggling to survive on their own in the real world. CEO's are told to retire early as opposed to stepping down. At the end of the day, everyone wants to credit themselves with a job well done and shift blame to others or outside forces. However, this doesn't mean that there's no position left in the US with 'accountability.' For instance, the Fed Chairman has to be correct on their position or the entire economy can be destroyed in the process. So what do we do instead? Those positions are the ones we blame for what's happening around us. So naturally, their response is to leave as delicately and unnoticed as possible. If you ask me, those people at Equifax should be in jail. Not because of the hack, but because they waited so long to let everyone know. Stepping down and retiring shouldn't mean they get away from it, the same way declaring bankruptcy doesn't mean I get away from my student loans. If people started taking accountability for their own actions, America would be much more healthy in my opinion. But then again, at the end of the day it is just my opinion, so you're free to believe whatever else you like. Cause you know what they say, 'opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "593",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Insurance companies on average make money by selling insurance, which means you lose money on average by dealing with them. The insurance is not gambling where the house always wins. This expression is literal in gambling, because that's how they set the odds. Insurance isn't necessarily similar. Example. Suppose there's 10% chance that $10,000 the boat sinks due to a defect. So, on average your loss is going to be $1,000. The variability of your loss measured as its standard deviation is $2,846. The variability of loss is a measure of risk. Now, let's look at two $10,000 boats. There's 1% chance that they both sink, and 18% chance that only one of them sinks. So, the expected loss is, unsurprisingly, $2,000. However, the variability of expected loss is $3,842, not quite twice the risk (variability) of a single boat accident. If you imagine that instead of a couple of boats the insurance has 100 boats, the variability of their loss (hence their risk) will increase only by a factor of 10, not 100 compared to a single boat. This means that their risk in relative terms is smaller than yours, the individual insurer's. What I tried to show was that it is possible to both of you and the insurer to benefit from the arrangement. It doesn't mean that it happens in every case, but generally it does. That's why in actuarial science there's a term fair price. UPDATE I was trying to avoid talking about utility here, because it's an involved subject, but you're dragging the discussion in this direction :) You're right that expected value cannot explain the insurance. The reason is that there's another concept that's necessary in addition to the objective measures such as expected value and risk: I mean the utility function or risk-aversion. So, in short you need to maximize expected utility, not the expected payout. Here's a toy example with the same boat. Assume that insurance is $150, and they pay the entire boat's value in case of accident, i.e. $10,000. You're given two choices effectively. At the end of the year, you have either of the following: You're right that the expected value in the second option can be higher in the second option. Let's say the probability of the loss is 10%, in this case the expected value would $9,900, which is higher than certain value of option 1. Why then some people choose option 2? The reason is that we don't maximize the expected payout, but we maximize the utility, according to modern microeconomics and game theory. Utility is some kind of an function that reflects your preference given the uncertain choices. Every person has their own preferences, and utility function. Let's say that yours is exponential with a=10000. In this case we can calculate the expected utility as follows: The math works out in such a way that it accounts for your risk tolerance. Depending on how much you love or hate risk, your expected utilities for these option will come out differently. For this given toy example it turned out that the expected utility is higher with insurance, so this person should get it. However, for different values of a parameter \"\"a\"\" in the function, it may not make a sense to insure. Some people are risk averse, some are risk lovers in certain situations. That's the reason why given the same options we make different choices. You may say that you don't value certainty enough to buy this insurance. The bottom line is that nobody can tell you that you're wrong to not buy an insurance. If your risk tolerance is high it may not make a sense for you. Having said this all, I must note that sometimes the society doesn't accept your preferences and utility function. Yes, you tell me today that you accept the risk, but tomorrow when the boat sinks you may come to me and say that you can't pay the student loan because of the hardship. That's the reason why it's mandatory to get liability insurance on cars, for instance.\""
},
{
"docid": "437427",
"title": "",
"text": "\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\""
},
{
"docid": "186869",
"title": "",
"text": "A lot may depend on the nature of a buyout, sometimes it's is for stock and cash, sometimes just stock, or in the case of this google deal, all cash. Since that deal was used, we'll discuss what happens in a cash buyout. If the stock price goes high enough before the buyout date to put you in the money, pull the trigger before the settlement date (in some cases, it might be pulled for you, see below). Otherwise, once the buyout occurs you will either be done or may receive adjusted options in the stock of the company that did the buyout (not applicable in a cash buyout). Typically the price will approach but not exceed the buyout price as the time gets close to the buyout date. If the buyout price is above your option strike price, then you have some hope of being in the money at some point before the buyout; just be sure to exercise in time. You need to check the fine print on the option contract itself to see if it had some provision that determines what happens in the event of a buyout. That will tell you what happens with your particular options. For example Joe Taxpayer just amended his answer to include the standard language from CBOE on it's options, which if I read it right means if you have options via them you need to check with your broker to see what if any special exercise settlement procedures are being imposed by CBOE in this case."
},
{
"docid": "63892",
"title": "",
"text": "\"An answer from a psychological viewpoint: money does not have a linear value to people. If you have $10.000, losing one dollar doesn't really matter. Losing all $10.000 is more than 10.000 times as bad. As a simple example of a non-linear function, let's use the \"\"square root\"\" function. Let's say that having $100 is ten times as good as having $1, and having $10000 is ten times as good as having $100. Now, this means that an insurance may have a negative expectation when expressed in dollars (since the insurance company is making a profit), but the expected value still can be positive. Let's assume the premium is $150 and there's a 1% chance it will pay $10.000. Clearly in dollars the expected loss is $50. But in the value to you (using that same square root function), the premium is just -0.75 (sqrt(9850)-sqrt(10000) and the expected payout is 1 (sqrt(10000)*1%). Intuitive: you won't notice the premium, if you're rich enough that you don't need the insurance. But once you do need the insurance, you could now be so poor that you appreciate the payout. As a side effect - this also shows that you want an insurance with a fairly high deductible. If a $10.000 loss is a risk you can bear, then you don't need insurance for losses in the order of $100. And that's even ignoring the fact that such small payouts have relatively high administrative costs for insurance companies, which is why the premium discount for high deductibles can be disproportionally high.\""
},
{
"docid": "423513",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are looking for a simple formula or buying order / strategy to guarantee a lower buying price, unfortunately this does not exist. Otherwise, all investors would employ this strategy and the financial markets would no longer have an validity (aka arbitrage). Buying any investment contains a certain level of risk (other than US treasuries of course). Having said that, there are many option buying strategies that can employed to help increase your ROR or hedge an existing position. Most of these strategies are based a predicted future direction of a stock on the investor's part. For example, you hold the Ford stock and feel they are releasing their earnings report next week. You feel that they will not meet investors' expectations. You don't want to sell your shares but what you can do is buy put options. If the stock does indeed go down then you make money on your put options. Here is a document on options. It is moderately technical but very good if you want a good introduction on the subject. The strategy that I described above is on pg 33. http://www.m-x.ca/f_publications_en/en.guide.options.pdf"
},
{
"docid": "134689",
"title": "",
"text": "Not to be a jerk, since I'm learning about options myself, but I think you have a few things wrong about your tesla put postion. First, assuming it was itm or atm within a week of strike it would maybe be worth $12-15, I glanced at the 11/10 put strikes ~325 trades for $12.65 https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/TSLA/options?expiration=2017-11-10 The closer it gets to expiry theta decay reduces put value significantly, the 325's that expire tomorrow are only worth $2.60. Expecting TSLA to drop from 325 to 50 a share by Jan has a .006% chance of occuring according to the current delta. It's a lottery ticket at best. _____ Lastly the $50 price is the expected share price at the date of expiry. The price you pay is 57c for the options. So in order to get to your 494k number TSLA would need to decline $50 dollars to a price of 275 a share. You wouldn't want to buy 50 dollar puts, just the 275 puts, provided it declines very quickly. EDIT: I was looking at the recent expiration to get an idea of atm or itm prices, since it's not like you would hold to expiration. Also the Jan has a 0.6% chance of hitting 50, not .006%. That said what I've noticed when things start to slide is that puts have a weird way of pricing themselves. For example when something gradually goes up all of the calls go up down the chain through time frames, but puts do not in the same fashion. Further out lower priced puts won't move nearly as much unless the company is basically headed for bankruptcy."
},
{
"docid": "245082",
"title": "",
"text": "There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares."
},
{
"docid": "90904",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They deserve jail just for their stupidity. How dense or oblivious do you have to be to hold a position that high up and still not be aware of the potential consequences. I worked finance for a public company as a lowly employee but I don't dare touch the stock or its options no matter what I know. And these are so called \"\"executives\"\". Jail them and burn these mofos assets.\""
},
{
"docid": "316497",
"title": "",
"text": "\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\""
},
{
"docid": "391752",
"title": "",
"text": "After searching a bit and talking to some investment advisors in India I got below information. So thought of posting it so that others can get benefited. This is specific to indian mutual funds, not sure whether this is same for other markets. Even currency used for examples is also indian rupee. A mutual fund generally offers two schemes: dividend and growth. The dividend option does not re-invest the profits made by the fund though its investments. Instead, it is given to the investor from time to time. In the growth scheme, all profits made by the fund are ploughed back into the scheme. This causes the NAV to rise over time. The impact on the NAV The NAV of the growth option will always be higher than that of the dividend option because money is going back into the scheme and not given to investors. How does this impact us? We don't gain or lose per se by selecting any one scheme. Either we make the choice to get the money regularly (dividend) or at one go (growth). If we choose the growth option, we can make money by selling the units at a high NAV at a later date. If we choose the dividend option, we will get the money time and again as well as avail of a higher NAV (though the NAV here is not as high as that of a growth option). Say there is a fund with an NAV of Rs 18. It declares a dividend of 20%. This means it will pay 20% of the face value. The face value of a mutual fund unit is 10 (its NAV in this case is 18). So it will give us Rs 2 per unit. If we own 1,000 units of the fund, we will get Rs 2,000. Since it has paid Rs 2 per unit, the NAV will fall from Rs 18 to Rs 16. If we invest in the growth option, we can sell the units for Rs 18. If we invest in the dividend option, we can sell the units for Rs 16, since we already made a profit of Rs 2 per unit earlier. What we must know about dividends The dividend is not guaranteed. If a fund declared dividends twice last year, it does not mean it will do so again this year. We could get a dividend just once or we might not even get it this year. Remember, though, declaring a dividend is solely at the fund's discretion; the periodicity is not certain nor is the amount fixed."
},
{
"docid": "167753",
"title": "",
"text": "Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation."
},
{
"docid": "590744",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is a classic correlation does not imply causation situation. There are (at least) three issues at play in this question: If you are swing- or day-trading then the first and second issues can definitely affect your trading. A higher-price, higher-volume stock will have smaller (percentage) volatility fluctuations within a very small period of time. However, in general, and especially when holding any position for any period of time during which unknowns can become known (such as Netflix's customer-loss announcement) it is a mistake to feel \"\"safe\"\" based on price alone. When considering longer-term investments (even weeks or months), and if you were to compare penny stocks with blue chip stocks, you still might find more \"\"stability\"\" in the higher value stocks. This is a correlation alone — in other words, a stable, reliable stock probably has a (relatively) high price but a high price does not mean it's reliable. As Joe said, the stock of any company that is exposed to significant risks can drop (or rise) by large amounts suddenly, and it is common for blue-chip stocks to move significantly in a period of months as changes in the market or the company itself manifest themselves. The last thing to remember when you are looking at raw dollar amounts is to remember to look at shares outstanding. Netflix has a price of $79 to Ford's $12; yet Ford has a larger market cap because there are nearly 4 billion shares compared to Netflix's 52m.\""
},
{
"docid": "357583",
"title": "",
"text": "Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable."
},
{
"docid": "27826",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> My question then is why do you espouse such simplistic nonsense when you understand that the situation is much more complex? Is it because it is easier and more psychologically comfortable to ignore these injustices than to admit that your model does not have an effective way of dealing with them? I reject your assessment so it's impossible to answer your questions that assume it. The position that \"\"Jim selling to John has nothing to do with Bob\"\" and the position that \"\"a power plant pollutes collective air possibly entitling compensation\"\" are independent and have no conflict. Simply because there are cases of market failures, I do not therefore conclude that the market system is itself a failure. Baby with the bathwater, etc. It's not because this way of thinking is easier but because it is most accurate. I honestly don't know what you mean by > than to admit that your model does not have an effective way of dealing with them? so I don't know how to respond. I stated in what I thought was plain language that my model has no effective means of dealing with them, only I insist that we must caveat that assessment with the admission that neither does a non-market model. What you were supposed to take away was the realization that there are few market failures that could not more simply be described as systematic failures generally. That is, a collectivist system is inherently illogical (if you want to argue this point, the discussion is over - I have no time for true socialists), yet we share a planet's resources and must decide how to best use them. The free market's conclusion is that people will learn if their air is being abused by a power plant and they will take action to mend it. This to a large extent has been proven in the transition from an early industrialized society to modern industry.\""
},
{
"docid": "61853",
"title": "",
"text": "\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\""
},
{
"docid": "60233",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I speak from a position of experience, My BS and MS are both in Comp Sci. I know very little about loans or finances. That is very unfortunate as you are obviously an intelligent human being. Perhaps this is a good time to pause your formal education and get educated in personal finance. To me, it is that important. I study computer science, and am thus confident that I will be able to find work after I finish school. This kind of attitude can lead to trouble. You will likely have a high salary, but that does not always translate into prosperity. Personal finance is more about behavior then mathematics. I currently work with people that have high salaries in a low cost of living area. Some have lost homes due to foreclosure some are very limited in their options because of high student loan balances. Some are millionaires without hitting the IPO/startup lotto. The difference is behavior. It's possible that someone in my family will be able to cosign and help me out with this loan. This is indicative of lack of knowledge and poor financial behavior. This kind of thing can lead to strained relationships to the point where people don't talk to each other. Never co-sign for anyone, and if you value the relationship with a person never ask them to co-sign. I'll be working as a TA again for a $1000 stipend. Yikes! Why in the world would you work for 1K when you need 4K? You should find a way to earn 6K this semester so you can save some and put some toward the loans you already acquired. Accepting this kind of situation \"\"raises red flags\"\" on your attitude towards personal finance. And yes it is possible, you can earn that waiting tables and if you can find a part time programming gig you can make a lot more then that. Consider working as a TA and wait tables until you find that first programming gig. I am just about done with my undergraduate degree, and will be starting graduate school at the same university next semester. To me this is a recipe for failure in most cases. You have expended all your financing options to date and are planning to go backwards even more. Why not get out of school with your BS, and go to work? You can save up some of your MS tuition and most companies will provide tuition reimbursement. Computer Science/Software Engineering can be a fickle market. Right now things are going crazy and times are really good. However that was not always the case during my career and unlikely for yours. For example, Just this year I bypassed my highest rate of pay that occurred in 2003. I was out of work most of 2004, and for part of 2005 I actually made less then when I was working while in college. In 2009 my company cut our salaries by 5%, but the net cost to me was more like a 27% cut. In 2001 I worked as a contractor for a company that had a 10% reduction in full time employees, yet they kept us contractors working. Recently I talked with a recruiter about a position doing J2EE, which is what I am doing now. It required a high level security clearance which is not an easy thing to get. The rub was that it was located in a higher cost of living area and only paid about 70% of what I am making now. They required more and paid less, but such is the market. You need to learn about these things! Good luck.\""
}
] |
6629 | Tax treatment of a boxed trade? | [
{
"docid": "444405",
"title": "",
"text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "201736",
"title": "",
"text": "What is a good resource to learn about options trading strategies? Options are a quite advanced investment form, and you'd do well to learn a lot about them before attempting to dive into this fairly illiquid market. Yale's online course in financial markets covers the Options Market and is a good starting point to make sure you've got all the basics. You may be familiar with most of it, but it's a decent refresher on lingo and Black-Scholes. How can I use options to establish some cash flow from long standing investments while minimizing capital gains expenses? This question seems designed to get people to talk about covered calls. Essentially, you sell call contracts: you let people buy things you already have at a price in the future, at their whim. They pay you for this option, though usually not much if the options aren't in the money. You can think of this as trading any return above the call option for a bit of extra cash. I don't invest with taxable accounts, but there are significant tax consequences for options. Because they expire, there will be turnover in your portfolio, and up front income when you take the sell side. So if you trade in options with close expiration dates, you'll probably end up with a lot of short-term capital gains, which are treated as normal income. One strategy is to trade in broad-based stock index options, which have favorable tax treatments. Some people have abused this though to disguise normal income as capital gains, so it could go away. Obviously the easy approach is to just use a tax advantaged account for options trading. An ETF might also be able to handle the turnover on your behalf, for example VIX is a series of options on S&P500 options. A second strategy I've heard of is buying calls and puts at a given strike price. For example, if you bought Dec '13 calls and puts on SPX @ 115 today, it would cost you about $35 dollars. If the price moves more than 35 dollars away from 115 by DEC '13 (in either direction), you've made a profit. If you reflect on that for a bit, you'll see why VIX is considered a volatility index. I guess I should mention that shorting a stock and buying a put option at the market price are very similar, with the exception that your loss is limited to the price of the option. Is there ever an instance where options investing is not speculative? The term 'speculative' is not well defined. For many people, the answer is no. It's very easy to just buy put options and wait for prices to fall, or call options and wait for prices to rise. Moreover, the second strategy above essentially gives you similar performance to a stock without paying full price. These all fall under the headline of increasing a risk portfolio rather than decreasing it, which I figure is a decent definition of speculation. On the other hand, there are ways to use options minimize risk rather than increase it. You can buy underwater options as portfolio insurance, if your portfolio drops below a certain amount, you still have the right to sell it at a higher one. And the Case-Schiller index is run in part, on the hopes that one day there might be a thriving market for real estate options (or futures). When you buy a home or lend money to someone to buy one, you could buy regional Case-Schiller options to protect you if the regional market tanks. But in all of these cases, it's required for someone else to take the opposite trade. Risk isn't reduced, it's traded around. So technically, there is a speculative element to these as well. I think the proper question here is whether speculation is present, but whether speculation can be put to good ends. Without speculators, the already very thin market for options would shrivel faster."
},
{
"docid": "177298",
"title": "",
"text": "Long-term capital gains, as you note, get special tax treatment. They are lower than regular income tax rates. Short-term capital gains aren't penalized, they are just treated as regular income under the regular rates. So, from a tax perspective, the day-trader gets by the same way as the rest of us because they are paying the same rates on the same progressive income tax scale."
},
{
"docid": "83857",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Yeah.... Colombia is one of the top Emerald mining countries of the world. I recommend you to investigate a little bit about it, check emerald prices in your country, then you'll find out if it's really profitable for you. If so, I recommend you to buy them at the \"\"Emerald Trade Center\"\" located in Bogota, all gemstones there, are certified, sometimes you can find people selling really cheap emeralds on the street, but most of the time it's a scam. Depending on size, color Weight, treatment, etc. Emeralds are less or more expensive. You can buy just the emerald or emerald Jewerly. Once I met a Colombian guy in Aruba, who buys emeralds in his country and then he sells it in Aruba. He said, it was profitable in Aruba. If so, I recommend you to buy them at the \"\"Emerald Trade Center\"\" located in Bogota, all gemstones there are certified, sometimes you can find people selling really cheap emeralds on the street, but most of the time it's a scam. Depending on size, color Weight, treatment, etc. Emeralds are less or more expensive. You can buy just the emerald or emerald Jewerly. Once I met a Colombian guy in Aruba, who buys emeralds in his country and then he sells it in Aruba. He said, it was profitable in Aruba.\""
},
{
"docid": "459953",
"title": "",
"text": "As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada."
},
{
"docid": "392357",
"title": "",
"text": "Regarding the tax implications half of your question ... There seem to be a lot of articles that say there's not yet any established law concerning the tax treatment of crowdsourced funds. Since your objective is gift-giving rather than business purposes, it would seem that the gift tax rules would apply, and gift taxes are charged to the donor not the donee. (But I am not a tax attorney.)"
},
{
"docid": "431610",
"title": "",
"text": "You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies."
},
{
"docid": "15319",
"title": "",
"text": "\"3) NOT to claim her as my dependent. No additional tax return (since she is NOT my dependent), but also no penalty. My end of year balance would be $0 No. Not claiming her as a dependent does not save you from being responsible for her penalty. You are responsible for her penalty if she is your dependent (i.e. she meets the conditions for being your dependent), regardless of whether you claim her on your tax return or not. If you have the option of claiming her or not, then she is your dependent, and you are responsible for her penalty. 26 CFR 1.5000A-1(c)(2)(i): For a month when a nonexempt individual does not have minimum essential coverage, if the nonexempt individual is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another individual for the other individual's taxable year including that month, the other individual is liable for the shared responsibility payment attributable to the dependent's lack of coverage. An individual is a dependent of a taxpayer for a taxable year if the individual satisfies the definition of dependent under section 152, regardless of whether the taxpayer claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return for the taxable year. [...] Form 1040 instructions, Line 61: [...] If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2015 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you can or do claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. If you, your spouse (if filing jointly), or someone you can or do claim as a dependent didn’t have coverage for each month of 2015 you must either claim a coverage exemption on Form 8965 or report a shared responsibility payment on line 61. [...] So you cannot check the box and must report exemptions for your sister, or report a shared responsibility payment. Form 8965 instructions, Definitions, \"\"Tax household\"\": For purposes of Form 8965, your tax household generally includes you, your spouse (if filing a joint return), and any individual you claim as a dependent on your tax return. It also generally includes each individual you can, but don't, claim as a dependent on your tax return. [...] Your sister is part of your tax household regardless of whether you claim her, and you must compute her shared responsibility payment for any months she did not have insurance and did not qualify for an exemption.\""
},
{
"docid": "20116",
"title": "",
"text": "You only have to own it for a day (or rather for some amount of time before the close of trading the day before the ex-dividend date). This is governed by exchange rules based on the date of record and payable date set by the company. You might want to look at this article or this one for more details. It should be difficult to make money from changes due to the dividend distribution since it is well known and expected. The exchanges have established rules for handling the various details that can come up, and traders account for the change where appropriate (as in option pricing). Also, note that the favorable U.S. tax treatment of dividends requires a 60-day ownership period for the stock."
},
{
"docid": "115333",
"title": "",
"text": "With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well."
},
{
"docid": "474745",
"title": "",
"text": "Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx"
},
{
"docid": "68154",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You will always pay the 10% penalty and the income tax on the money, so even if you withdraw amounts below the taxable limits - you still pay 10% tax. However, you can probably offset that from your Indian tax liability on the money. If you convert it to Roth - you should check with an Indian tax accountant/adviser what the Indian tax treatment would be. It is likely that \"\"Roth\"\" advantages are unrecognized by foreign countries, so you may end up paying taxes on both the conversion (in the US) and the distribution (in India). Check with a tax adviser who's knowledgeable about the Indo-US tax treaty and the tax laws in both the countries, this may be trickier than people with no international tax experience may think.\""
},
{
"docid": "406042",
"title": "",
"text": "Are the amounts in those boxes taxes that have already been removed? Yes. If they are, how do I report these totals? When I entered the information from the 1099-MISC, it only asked for the total, and didn't ask for (what I thought were) the taxes already taken out. It should appear on your 1040 line 64 (and similar line on your State tax return). If the program doesn't ask for all the 1099 fields (which is stupid), you can add it as additional taxes paid in the Credits section, somewhere in the area where they ask about estimated payments etc."
},
{
"docid": "258962",
"title": "",
"text": "I think this question is best answered by simply spending 40-60 minutes looking over the tax documents from last year and tracing thru the calculations. As much as we might like to do so, we can't treat taxes like a black box. Tax law is much more complicated than it should be, but its much easier to understand taxes after you've filed them than before or during... at least you have solid numbers to look at."
},
{
"docid": "178697",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\""
},
{
"docid": "139094",
"title": "",
"text": "\"They are similar in the sense that they are transferring money from the company to shareholders, but that's about it. There is different tax treatment, yes, but that's because they are fundamentally different. Dividends transfer money equally to all shareholders, but that also reduces the value of each share by the same amount, since it's cash out the door, which drops the value of the company. Shareholders are taxed on dividends at the capital gains tax rate. A buyback returns the cash to shareholders who decide to sell. Other shareholders get a secondary benefit of now owning a slightly larger portion of the company since there are fewer shares outstanding. Shareholders only pay tax if they sell shares for a gain. It that means when company buyback their stock, the stock price will definitely go up? Not necessarily. It depends on the price that the company buys back the shares for and what the \"\"opportunity cost\"\" of that cash is - meaning what else could the company have done with the cash that would have been better? Buybacks often happen in mature companies with undervalued stock prices and fewer opportunities for further investment. If a company has an intrinsic value of $10 a share but its stock is trading at $8 a share, then it can instantly get a 25% \"\"return\"\" by buying back stock. I use the term \"\"return\"\" loosely since the company does not actually profit from the buyback, but from the shareholder's perspective the company is worth more per share.\""
},
{
"docid": "115884",
"title": "",
"text": "For a 401(k), only contributions that you make for the current tax year through payroll deduction are tax-deductible. Those contributions are subtracted off of your income for your W-2 Box 1 income amount. If you make a manual contribution to your 401(k) outside of that, it is not tax deductible, and there is nowhere on your Form 1040 to deduct it. Your commuter benefits are also paid for out of payroll deduction and deducted on your W-2, so this is not an option, either. You could contribute to a traditional IRA for last year up to your tax return deadline, and deduct the amount on Form 1040 Line 32. However, because you have access to a retirement plan at work, your IRA contribution is only tax deductible if your income is below certain limits."
},
{
"docid": "580191",
"title": "",
"text": "Of course a higher tax rate will impact my decision on whether to invest or not. The return may still be positive but a higher tax rate could very well drop the returns below the cost of capital. There's a nice little box for the tax rates in any financial model for a reason."
},
{
"docid": "203232",
"title": "",
"text": "If you had a retirement plan at any time in 2013 you are considered covered by an plan. Are You Covered by an Employer's Retirement Plan? You’re covered by an employer retirement plan for a tax year if your employer (or your spouse’s employer) has a: Defined contribution plan (profit-sharing, 401(k), stock bonus and money purchase pension plan) and any contributions or forfeitures were allocated to your account for the plan year ending with or within the tax year; IRA-based plan (SEP, SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA plan) and you had an amount contributed to your IRA for the plan year that ends with or within the tax year; or Defined benefit plan (pension plan that pays a retirement benefit spelled out in the plan) and you are eligible to participate for the plan year ending with or within the tax year. Box 13 on the Form W-2 you receive from your employer should contain a check in the “Retirement plan” box if you are covered. If you are still not certain, check with your (or your spouse’s) employer. The limits on the amount you can deduct don’t affect the amount you can contribute. However, you can never deduct more than you actually contribute. Additional Resources: Publication 590, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs)"
},
{
"docid": "590232",
"title": "",
"text": "To determine how much you can contribute to a regular and roth IRA you have to calculate your compensation: What Is Compensation? Generally, compensation is what you earn from working. For a summary of what compensation does and does not include, see Table 1-1. Compensation includes all of the items discussed next (even if you have more than one type).Wages, salaries, etc. Wages, salaries, tips, professional fees, bonuses, and other amounts you receive for provid-ing personal services are compensation. The IRS treats as compensation any amount properly shown in box 1 (Wages, tips, other compensation) of Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, provided that amount is reduced by any amount properly shown in box 11 (Nonqualified plans). Scholarship and fellowship payments are compen-sation for IRA purposes only if shown in box 1 of Form W-2. It a also includes commissions, self-employment income, and alimony an non-taxable combat pay. For most people it is what i in box 1 of the W-2. For the example in the question. If the sum of Box 1's equals $3,200 that is the maximum you can contribute to all your IRAs (regular and Roth). The funds can come from anywhere. It is not related to your net check. The money can be from savings, gifts, parents, grandparents... The IRS doesn't care about the source of the funds, only that you don't over contribute. Of course the calculation is more complex if the person is married, and if they have access to a retirement account."
}
] |
6635 | Why don't share prices of a company rise every other Friday when the company buys shares for its own employees? | [
{
"docid": "102449",
"title": "",
"text": "Let's take an example: IBM has about 430,000 employees worldwide. Assume the average yearly salary is $80K (it's probably less, since a lot of jobs are offshore). If every employee took 10% of their pay as stock, that's $132 million every two weeks. But IBM's market capitalization is about $153 billion, so stock purchases would be less than 0.1% of that."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "339854",
"title": "",
"text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability."
},
{
"docid": "117082",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Someone who buys a stock is fundamentally buying a share of all future dividends, plus the future liquidation value of the company in the event that it is liquidated. While some investors may buy stocks in the hope that they will be able to find other people willing to pay more for the stock than they did, that's a zero sum game. The only way investors can make money in the aggregate is if either stocks pay dividends or if the money paid for company assets at liquidation exceeds total net price for which the company sold shares. One advantage of dividends from a market-rationality perspective is that dividend payments are easy to evaluate than company value. Ideally, the share price of a company should match the present per-share cash value of all future dividends and liquidation, but it's generally impossible to know in advance what that value will be. Stock prices may sometimes rise because of factors which increase the expected per-share cash value of future dividends and liquidations. In a sane market, rising prices on an item will reduce people's eagerness to buy and increase people's eagerness to sell. Unfortunately, in a marketplace where steady price appreciation is expected the feedback mechanisms responsible for stability get reversed. Rapidly rising prices act as a red flag to buyers--unfortunately, bulls don't see red flags as signal to stop, but rather as a signal to charge ahead. For a variety of reasons including the disparate treatment of dividends and capital gains, it's often not practical for a company to try to stabilize stock prices through dividends and stock sales. Nonetheless, dividends are in a sense far more \"\"real\"\" than stock price appreciation, since paying dividends generally requires that companies actually have sources of revenues and profits. By contrast, it's possible for stock prices to go through the roof for companies which have relatively few assets of value and no real expectation of becoming profitable businesses, simply because investors see rising stock prices as a \"\"buy\"\" signal independent of any real worth.\""
},
{
"docid": "259904",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,"
},
{
"docid": "200784",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees \"\"share options\"\" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a \"\"strike price\"\" specified when the option is granted. Typically these \"\"vest\"\" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question.\""
},
{
"docid": "36366",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer. The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because \"\"it was my idea,\"\" or because \"\"I was more experienced\"\" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you just say, \"\"to heck with it, we can NEVER figure out what the correct split is, so let's just be pals and go 50-50,\"\" you'll stay friends and the company will survive. Thus, I present you with Joel's Totally Fair Method to Divide Up The Ownership of Any Startup. For simplicity sake, I'm going to start by assuming that you are not going to raise venture capital and you are not going to have outside investors. Later, I'll explain how to deal with venture capital, but for now assume no investors. Also for simplicity sake, let's temporarily assume that the founders all quit their jobs and start working on the new company full time at the same time. Later, I'll explain how to deal with founders who do not start at the same time. Here's the principle. As your company grows, you tend to add people in \"\"layers\"\". The top layer is the first founder or founders. There may be 1, 2, 3, or more of you, but you all start working about the same time, and you all take the same risk... quitting your jobs to go work for a new and unproven company. The second layer is the first real employees. By the time you hire this layer, you've got cash coming in from somewhere (investors or customers--doesn't matter). These people didn't take as much risk because they got a salary from day one, and honestly, they didn't start the company, they joined it as a job. The third layer are later employees. By the time they joined the company, it was going pretty well. For many companies, each \"\"layer\"\" will be approximately one year long. By the time your company is big enough to sell to Google or go public or whatever, you probably have about 6 layers: the founders and roughly five layers of employees. Each successive layer is larger. There might be two founders, five early employees in layer 2, 25 employees in layer 3, and 200 employees in layer 4. The later layers took less risk. OK, now here's how you use that information: The founders should end up with about 50% of the company, total. Each of the next five layers should end up with about 10% of the company, split equally among everyone in the layer. Example: Two founders start the company. They each take 2500 shares. There are 5000 shares outstanding, so each founder owns half. They hire four employees in year one. These four employees each take 250 shares. There are 6000 shares outstanding. They hire another 20 employees in year two. Each one takes 50 shares. They get fewer shares because they took less risk, and they get 50 shares because we're giving each layer 1000 shares to divide up. By the time the company has six layers, you have given out 10,000 shares. Each founder ends up owning 25%. Each employee layer owns 10% collectively. The earliest employees who took the most risk own the most shares. Make sense? You don't have to follow this exact formula but the basic idea is that you set up \"\"stripes\"\" of seniority, where the top stripe took the most risk and the bottom stripe took the least, and each \"\"stripe\"\" shares an equal number of shares, which magically gives employees more shares for joining early. A slightly different way to use the stripes is for seniority. Your top stripe is the founders, below that you reserve a whole stripe for the fancy CEO that you recruited who insisted on owning 10%, the stripe below that is for the early employees and also the top managers, etc. However you organize the stripes, it should be simple and clear and easy to understand and not prone to arguments. Now that we have a fair system set out, there is one important principle. You must have vesting. Preferably 4 or 5 years. Nobody earns their shares until they've stayed with the company for a year. A good vesting schedule is 25% in the first year, 2% each additional month. Otherwise your co-founder is going to quit after three weeks and show up, 7 years later, claiming he owns 25% of the company. It never makes sense to give anyone equity without vesting. This is an extremely common mistake and it's terrible when it happens. You have these companies where 3 cofounders have been working day and night for five years, and then you discover there's some jerk that quit after two weeks and he still thinks he owns 25% of the company for his two weeks of work. Now, let me clear up some little things that often complicate the picture. What happens if you raise an investment? The investment can come from anywhere... an angel, a VC, or someone's dad. Basically, the answer is simple: the investment just dilutes everyone. Using the example from above... we're two founders, we gave ourselves 2500 shares each, so we each own 50%, and now we go to a VC and he offers to give us a million dollars in exchange for 1/3rd of the company. 1/3rd of the company is 2500 shares. So you make another 2500 shares and give them to the VC. He owns 1/3rd and you each own 1/3rd. That's all there is to it. What happens if not all the early employees need to take a salary? A lot of times you have one founder who has a little bit of money saved up, so she decides to go without a salary for a while, while the other founder, who needs the money, takes a salary. It is tempting just to give the founder who went without pay more shares to make up for it. The trouble is that you can never figure out the right amount of shares to give. This is just going to cause conflicts. Don't resolve these problems with shares. Instead, just keep a ledger of how much you paid each of the founders, and if someone goes without salary, give them an IOU. Later, when you have money, you'll pay them back in cash. In a few years when the money comes rolling in, or even after the first VC investment, you can pay back each founder so that each founder has taken exactly the same amount of salary from the company. Shouldn't I get more equity because it was my idea? No. Ideas are pretty much worthless. It is not worth the arguments it would cause to pay someone in equity for an idea. If one of you had the idea but you both quit your jobs and started working at the same time, you should both get the same amount of equity. Working on the company is what causes value, not thinking up some crazy invention in the shower. What if one of the founders doesn't work full time on the company? Then they're not a founder. In my book nobody who is not working full time counts as a founder. Anyone who holds on to their day job gets a salary or IOUs, but not equity. If they hang onto that day job until the VC puts in funding and then comes to work for the company full time, they didn't take nearly as much risk and they deserve to receive equity along with the first layer of employees. What if someone contributes equipment or other valuable goods (patents, domain names, etc) to the company? Great. Pay for that in cash or IOUs, not shares. Figure out the right price for that computer they brought with them, or their clever word-processing patent, and give them an IOU to be paid off when you're doing well. Trying to buy things with equity at this early stage just creates inequality, arguments, and unfairness. How much should the investors own vs. the founders and employees? That depends on market conditions. Realistically, if the investors end up owning more than 50%, the founders are going to feel like sharecroppers and lose motivation, so good investors don't get greedy that way. If the company can bootstrap without investors, the founders and employees might end up owning 100% of the company. Interestingly enough, the pressure is pretty strong to keep things balanced between investors and founders/employees; an old rule of thumb was that at IPO time (when you had hired all the employees and raised as much money as you were going to raise) the investors would have 50% and the founders/employees would have 50%, but with hot Internet companies in 2011, investors may end up owning a lot less than 50%. Conclusion There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but anything you can do to make it simple, transparent, straightforward, and, above-all, fair, will make your company much more likely to be successful. The above awesome answer came from the Stack Exchange beta site for startups, which has now closed. I expect that this equity distribution question (which is strongly tied to personal finance) will come up more times in the future so I have copied the content originally posted. All credit for this excellent answer is due to Joel Spolsky, a moderator for the Startups SE beta site, and co-founder of Stack Exchange.\""
},
{
"docid": "42625",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This question drives at what value a shareholder actually provides to a corporation, and by extent, to the economy. If you subscribe for new shares (like in an Initial Public Offering), it is very straightforward to say \"\"I have provided capital to the corporation, which it is using to advance its business.\"\" If you buy shares that already exist (like in a typical share purchase on a public exchange), your money doesn't go to the company. Instead, it goes to someone who paid someone who paid someone who paid someone (etc.) who originally contributed money to the corporation. In theory, the value of a share price does not directly impact the operation of the company itself, apart from what @DanielCarson aptly noted (employee stock options are affected by share price, impacting morale, etc.). This is because in theory, the true value of a company (and thus, the value of a share) is the present value of all future cashflows (dividends + final liquidation). This means that in a technical sense, a company's share price should result from the company's value. The company's true value does not result from the share price. But what you are doing as a shareholder is impacting the liquidity available to other potential investors (also as mentioned by @DanielCarson, in reference to the desirability for future financing). The more people who invest their money in the stock market, the more liquid those stocks become. This is the true value you add to the economy by investing in stocks - you add liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of capital investment generally. The fewer people there are who are willing to invest in a particular company, the harder it is for an investor to buy or sell shares at will. If it is difficult to sell shares in a company, the risk of holding shares in that company is higher, because you can't \"\"cash out\"\" as easily. This increased risk then does change the value of the shares - because even though the corporation's internal value is the same, the projected cashflows of the shares themselves now has a question mark around the ability to sell when desired. Whether this actually has an impact on anything depends on how many people join you in your declaration of ethical investing. Like many other forms of social activism, success relies on joint effort. This goes beyond the direct and indirect impacts mentioned above; if 'ethical investing' becomes more pronounced, it may begin to stigmatize the target companies (fewer people wanting to work for 'blacklist' corporations, fewer people buying their products, etc.).\""
},
{
"docid": "498676",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\""
},
{
"docid": "407911",
"title": "",
"text": "Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere."
},
{
"docid": "332826",
"title": "",
"text": "So far buying of own by own companies like Apple, is concerned it will surely raise the price of the script. At some level, the share prices are a factor of supply and demand at a given price. Apple being a very demanded script, its supply in the market goes down with the buy back. After a while, this will surely make the script price rise. It also depends at what price the buy back is affected. If the buy back is done at a right price, it will help the existing shareholder. If a very high price is paid, it will erode shareholders wealth. Hence each buy back needs to be studies separately. There are several and at times complex variables which determines if the buy back is good for continuing shareholders or not."
},
{
"docid": "3750",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The implication is market irrationality is stronger than market rationality. Aka nothing makes sense when TSLA climbs to $400 or when CMG rises to $750. I wouldn't say there is a systematic flaw in valuation. I think there is just a lot of ignorance. Markets are more open to household investors than ever before. You used to go to your broker and ask him what's up and he'd give you the inside scoop since you pay them money. Now you go onto marketwatch and get some random nobody's opinion on everything and make stock selections based on that. But eventually the chickens come home to roost and things will correct itself. Big players will jump ship and cause signals to other traders to jump ship. The public can pump stocks up pretty high but it doesn't just go to infinity. Eventually someone will stop and say, \"\"wtf is going on\"\" and start selling. Stocks are sold on a basis of a limit order book so it's real prices that people are paying. People don't care about prices currently because most don't have any finance knowledge but want to invest their own money. They just hear about Tesla doing something amazing (from some clickbait article or news outlet) and can't stop thinking about buying Tesla. They go to Chipotle and think \"\"wow this place is so good and hip, they must be a great investment\"\". The markets have been filled with more subjective analysis than ever before especially with so much low quality information at your fingertips. Equally ignorant people startin blogs about investment and personal finance being shepherds for other ignorant people. In the end they all lose. People who exclaim \"\"this stock is going up to $250 easily\"\" with literally zero quantitative analysis or even a baseline reference point to back it up are prime examples of this. Ignorance of markets and cheap money almost always lead to market runs that end catastrophically. Dot com bubble, 1929 market crash, 2008, it's always the same. People who have no business taking loans out or buying on margin or leveraging positions with debt only to get fucked over once things are brought back down to Earth. After 2 runs of QE, we now have cheap money and with everyone being a crier for their personal investment strategy, we now also have rampant ignorance. I don't expect things to last but no one can call the bottom or the top, or else you'd be very very rich. Have a safe portfolio, don't try to time the markets. Have a strategy that hedges against unexpected change, don't try to gamble on this change. Because it's ultimately impossible to predict the movement of every single person on this earth that invests their money into markets. So don't try. Just be prepared. ---- To expand further into valuation theory: at the end of the day, people invest their money to make more money. It's as simple as that. If your money doesn't grow in an investment vehicle, it's ultimately a shit investment. But no one values intrinsic value of a company's equity before they decide whether or not $380 for TSLA is a good/bad deal. As a result, stocks can be pumped up way higher and people still see the gains on their stocks through capital gains fueled by other optimistic investors. Non-zero sum goes both ways. People can make shitloads of money on stock without an equitable loser--people can also lose shitloads on stock without any real winner emerging from the rubble. When this bubble bursts, lots and lots of people will lose money on TSLA when people's expectations become rational and they stop paying $300 a share for a negative or 70 PE ratio. It's insane what multipliers people will pay for these companies without even realizing the implication--if you buy a share of a company with a PE ratio of 70, you just paid 70 times their earnings for a share. In an ideal world where they released every single penny of earnings as dividends, it would take you 70 periods to reclaim your money on that share. This obviously doesn't take into account capital gains, but capital gains aren't supposed to be this irrational to where a stock can be pumped up into 70x PE ratio in the first place. It's a whole messed up web of confusion and irrationality and eventually something will catalyze a reaction. Imagine a market where everyone just agreed to pump up a single stock to infinity and everyone just rakes in shitloads of money. Would this work? Of course not. It's literally a pyramid scheme that relies on future generations to constantly inject capital--no real value is being created by this scheme. It requires constantly more future generations to continue adding money into the scheme and will crash once people stop pumping money into it. The same thing will happen here. Everyone \"\"agreed\"\" to pump up TSLA (in a sense) but eventually people will realize this is stupid as shit and the pyramid will come tumbling down because there is nothing they receive from this scheme other than the money from other people. It's essentially moving money around, making 0 use of it, until people stop pumping money into the system and everyone realizes that nothing of real value had been produced through the use of this money. Ultimately the only thing that creates real value is the money that is returned to shareholders from an outside party--the company you're invested in. Real value is not created when people exchange stock and money. So why do these transactions create higher values in equity? The basis of equity valuation states that dividends are the only way for companies to raise the price of their stock, going off the traditional Dividend Discount Model. And theoretically, that's the only logical explanation. Buying and trading stock does nothing for the company, minus T Stock they might own. Ultimately the only party creating real value is the underlying company. If they aren't creating real value, then their stock should not be increasing, period. The way they create value is by efficiently utilizing assets to generate returns on investment which can be returned to investors through dividends. Dividends can only be increased (while maintaining an equitable payout ratio) by generating more net income that can increase the actual pool of money that can be allocated back to investors. TSLA does not do this. TSLA regularly loses money and overpromises. There is no logical explanation for any of this except that everyone is irrational. Obviously theory is not the same as in practice but the theory is important here because it's really the basis for any investment at all. At the end of the day, a share of stock is the right to a share of the company's equity. People own equity in companies because companies generate money that it returns back to its owners. That's what a company does. That's what an owner does. If you own shares of a company, you're an owner. And if your company does not return more money back to you YoY, then why are you invested in them? Ultimately, you're riding a capital gains wave that will eventually subside once market irrationality succumbs to rationality. And it always does because the real value always catches up to the fake value that is caused by pumping and dumping stocks.\""
},
{
"docid": "551893",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised."
},
{
"docid": "586984",
"title": "",
"text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions."
},
{
"docid": "281419",
"title": "",
"text": "There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't."
},
{
"docid": "177093",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\""
},
{
"docid": "566205",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the \"\"dividend day\"\" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 \"\"refund\"\". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the \"\"normal\"\" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the \"\"normal\"\" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life.\""
},
{
"docid": "545036",
"title": "",
"text": "If a company is valued correctly, then paying dividends should lower the share price, and buying back shares should leave the share price unchanged. If the share price is $100, and the company pays a $10 dividend, then either its cash goes down by $10 per share, it is has to borrow money for the same amount, or some mixture. Either way, the value of the company has gone down by $10 per share. If the share price is $100, and the company buys back 10 percent of its shares, then it also has to find the money, just as for the dividend, and the value of the company goes down by 10 percent. However, the number of shares also goes down by 10 percent, so the amount of value per share is the same, and the share price should stay unchanged. Now there are psychological effects. Many people like getting paid dividends, so they will want to own shares of a company paying dividends, so the share price goes up. Similar with a share buyback; the fact that someone buys huge amounts of shares drives the price up. Both effects are purely psychological. A buyback has another effect if the shares are not valued correctly. If the company is worth $100 per share but for some reason the shareprice is down to $50, then after the buyback the value per share has even gone up. Basically the company buys from stupid investors, which increases the value for clever investors holding on to their shares. If the shareprice were $200, then buying back shares would be a stupid move for the company."
},
{
"docid": "102698",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Anthony Russell - I agree with JohnFx. Petroleum is used in making many things such as asphalt, road oil, plastic, jet fuel, etc. It's also used in some forms of electricity generation, and some electric cars use gasoline as a backup form of energy, petrol is also used in electricity generation outside of cars. Source can be found here. But to answer your question of why shares of electric car companies are not always negatively related to one another deals with supply and demand. If investors feel positively about petroleum and petroleum related prospects, then they are going to buy or attempt to buy shares of \"\"X\"\" petrol company. This will cause the price of \"\"X\"\", petrol company to rise, ceteris paribus. Just because the price of petroleum is high doesn't mean investors are going to buy shares of an electric car company. Petrol prices could be high, but numerous electric car companies could be doing poorly, now, with that being said you could argue that sales of electric cars may go up when petrol prices are high, but there are numerous factors that come into play here. I think it would be a good idea to do some more research if you are planning on investing. Also, remember, after a company goes public they no longer set the price of the shares of their stock. The price of company \"\"X\"\" shares are determined by supply and demand, which is inherently determined by investors attitudes and expectations, ultimately defined by past company performance, expectations of future performance, earnings, etc.. It could be that when the market is doing well - it's a good sign of other macroeconomic variables (employment, GDP, incomes, etc) and all these factors power how often individuals travel, vacation, etc. It also has to deal with the economy of the country producing the oil, when you have OPEC countries selling petrol to the U.S. it is likely much cheaper per barrel than domestic produced and refined petrol because of the labor laws, etc. So a strong economy may be somewhat correlated with oil prices and a strong market, but it's not necessarily the case that strong oil prices drive the economy..I think this is a great research topic that cannot be answered in one post.. Check this article here. From here you can track down what research the Fed of Cleveland has done concerning this. My advice to you is to not believe everything your peers tell you, but to research everything your peers tell you. With just a few clicks you can figure out the legitimacy of many things to at least some degree.\""
},
{
"docid": "58009",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Stock price is determined by the buyers and sellers, correct? Correct! \"\"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it\"\"-Publius Syrus What causes people to buy or sell? Is it news? earnings? stock analysis and techniques? All of these things influence investors' perception of how much a stock is worth. If AMZN makes a lot of money one quarter, then the price might go up. But maybe public perception of AMZN changes because of a large scandal. This could cause the share price to decline even with the favorable earnings report. Why do these 'good' or 'bad' news make people want to buy/sell a stock? People invest to make money. If it looks like a company is going to take a turn for the worst, people will sell. If it looks like the company has a bright, cash-laden future in front of them, people will buy. News is one of the many factors people use to determine how well a company will do. Theoretically could a bunch of people short AMZN and drive down the price regardless of how well it is doing? Say investors wanted to boycott AMZN in order to drive down the cost and get some cheap shares. This is pretty silly, but say for the sake of the argument that everyone who owned AMZN decided to sell their shares and no other investor was willing to buy the shares for less than $0.01, then AMZN shares would be \"\"worth\"\" $0.01 in that aspect. That is extremely unlikely to happen, though, for two reasons:\""
},
{
"docid": "352894",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Offtopic, but what do you think of the idea of the stock market being a \"\"ponzi scheme\"\"? I've had this same idea that [Mark Cuban reiterated well by writing](http://blogmaverick.com/2008/09/08/talking-stocks-and-money/): >Ive said a lot of this before. The stock market is by definition a ponzi scheme. As long as money keeps on coming in, then there is someone to take the stocks from the sellers. If the amount of money coming in is reduced, the stocks, indexes, et al go down. What if, for who knows whatever reason, the amount of money going into stocks declined significantly ? Who would buy stock from the sellers. I mean goodness gracious, you could see something disastrous happen. Like the Nasdaq dropping from 5000, to under 2000 in just a few years. Its happened before, it can happen again. > >Which is exactly why we get all these nonsensical commercials from brokerages. To keep the money coming in . I wish someone would index the amount of money spent on marketing by mutual funds and brokerages to the Nasdaq and Dow and see if it correlates. > >Money inflows drives the business. We can get all the economic data we ever dreamed of getting, but if money inflows declined significantly for an extended period of time, then every rule of thumb would go out the window until money started flowing in. Yes it would flow in eventually as prices dropped. From big investors like me who wouldnt have gotten hurt by a huge market decline and could come in and buy huge chunks, or companies outright. > >You ? You probably would be like Charles Ponzi’s customers. You wouldnt be able to get your money out of the fund when it went down, and by the time you did, it would be too late. You would have been crushed. > >Ive said it before, a stock that doesnt pay dividends is valued like a baseball card. Just whatever you can sell it for. The concept that you own “your share” of the company is a joke. You are completely at the whim of the CEO and board who will dilute you on a daily basis with stock options, then try to buy back stock to cover it up and push up the price, rewarding the shareholders who get out, rather than those that continue to hold the shares. Meaning you. > >Have you ever seen Warren Buffet talk about buying 100 shares of anything k shares ? or does he take control of , or purchase a material percentage of a company ? > >If you have enough money to have influence , take control or buy it outright, then the stock market can work for you. Thats why I buy stock in public companies that relate to my other business entities. When i pick up the phone and call the CEO of a company i own shares in, they call me back very quickly. When I ask if there are business opportunities that make sense for the company and another company of mine to work together, I wont always get the business, but I will always get a meeting. If Im smart about the investments I make, the more important returns come from the relationships with the companies than the action of the stock. > >If the best you can do is buy shares that are going to be continuously diluted, then you are merely a sucker. There is a good chance that the shares you bought came from shares an insider who got stock options. You just helped dilute yourself with your first share purchase. > >The wealthy can make the stockmarket work for them. Individuals buying shares of stock in non dividend paying stocks… they work for the stockmarket. > >I know Ive painted a pretty bleak picture. > >The stockmarket isnt going away. Would it shock me if the whole thing collapsed ? yes. it would. Its just too engrained in our way of life in the USA. What would change my mind is if a better investment vehicle came along. > >The stockmarket used to be about investing capital in companies that came public or did secondary offerings. That money was used to create amazing businesses and return dividends back to people who truly were investors. There once was a day where most companies paid dividends higher than the interest rates on their bonds. Why ? Because stocks are inherently more risky. If a company goes belly up, bondholders collect first, shareholders usually last. People could buy and hold stocks, and get paid real cash money for being a shareholder in the company at rates far higher than the divident yields we see today. If the company did well, the dividends went up. Investors who held, actually got all their money back in dividends at some point and the rest was gravy. The good ole days. > >But that changed when mutual funds came along and started marketing the concept of growth as a way to attract investors. > >Its not inconceivable that the old mindset could comeback. That a new market of stocks could be created where companies didnt continuously dilute shareholders by issuing stock and options to themselves. Where earnings were earned for the same reason they are in private companies, to not only fund growth, but also provide cash back to investors. Now if that market existed today. Where I could buy 100 shares of stock, and even if it represented just 1/100000 of ownership in the company, I could have confidence that year after year, I would still own 1/100000th of that company, and if that company generated earnings , I would have at least some of that money returned to me. Well then, that wouldnt be a ponzi scheme. That would be a true market of stocks, and I would be happy to recommend to anyone to be careful, but buying stocks in that market could be something worth considering if your appetite for risk canhandle it.\""
}
] |
6635 | Why don't share prices of a company rise every other Friday when the company buys shares for its own employees? | [
{
"docid": "587137",
"title": "",
"text": "This is an old question that has an accepted answer, but it has gotten bumped due to an edit and the answers given are incorrect. I am assuming this means that every other Friday, the company is going into the open public market, buying those shares and then giving it out to the employees. No. Companies will internally hold shares that it intends to offer employees as additional compensation. There are no open market transactions, so the market price of the stock does not change (at least not due to buying pressure). The only net effect is an equivalent expense for the compensation, but that should already be accounted for in the share price as normal operating expenses. These share may come through an initial buyback from the market, but more common is that when companies issue new shares they keep some internally for exactly this situation. If they issued new shares every pay period, it would dilute the existing shares several times a quarter which would be difficult to account for."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "341424",
"title": "",
"text": "It has got to do with market perceptions and expectation and the perceived future prospects of the company. Usually the expectation of a company's results are already priced into the share price, so if the results deviate from these expectations, the share price can move up or down respectfully. For example, many times a company's share price may be beaten down for increasing profits by 20% above the previous year when the expectation was that it would increase profits by 30%. Other times a company's share price may rise sharply for making a 20% loss when the expectation was that it would make a 30% loss. Then there is also a company's prospects for future growth and performance. A company may be heading into trouble, so even though they made a $100M profit this year, the outlook for the company may be bleak. This could cause the share price to drop accordingly. Conversely, a company may have made a loss of $100M but its is turning a corner after reducing costs and restructuring. This can be seen as a positive for the future causing the share price to rise. Also, a company making $100M in profits would not put that all into the bank. It may pay dividends with some, it may put some more towards growing the business, and it might keep some cash available in case cash-flows fluctuate during the year."
},
{
"docid": "95889",
"title": "",
"text": "It's important to remember what a share is. It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company. The company has one million shares on its register. You own one thousand of them. That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share. The company has machinery and land worth $1M. That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company. If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share. The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales. That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit? It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business. The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time. However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out. But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend. Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out. Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead?"
},
{
"docid": "287227",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you have to go back to [this HBR article](https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) to really understand: TLDR: Buybacks boost CEO pay and hurt the long term value of companies. But I'm not convinced that they're \"\"the root of inequality\"\" \"\"Consider the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.\"\" \"\"Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. \"\" \"\"Trillions of dollars that could have been spent on innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy over the past three decades have instead been used to buy back shares for what is effectively stock-price manipulation.\"\" \"\" Most are now done on the open market, and my research shows that they often come at the expense of investment in productive capabilities and, consequently, aren’t great for long-term shareholders.\"\" \"\"Research by the Academic-Industry Research Network, a nonprofit I cofounded and lead, shows that companies that do buybacks never resell the shares at higher prices.\"\" \"\"Many academics have warned that if U.S. companies don’t start investing much more in research and manufacturing capabilities, they cannot expect to remain competitive in a range of advanced technology industries. \"\" Specific examples: \"\"Pharmaceutical drugs. In response to complaints that U.S. drug prices are at least twice those in any other country, Pfizer and other U.S. pharmaceutical companies have argued that the profits from these high prices—enabled by a generous intellectual-property regime and lax price regulation—permit more R&D to be done in the United States than elsewhere. Yet from 2003 through 2012, Pfizer funneled an amount equal to 71% of its profits into buybacks, and an amount equal to 75% of its profits into dividends. In other words, it spent more on buybacks and dividends than it earned and tapped its capital reserves to help fund them. The reality is, Americans pay high drug prices so that major pharmaceutical companies can boost their stock prices and pad executive pay.\"\" \"\"Nanotechnology. Intel executives have long lobbied the U.S. government to increase spending on nanotechnology research. In 2005, Intel’s then-CEO, Craig R. Barrett, argued that “it will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology.” Yet from 2001, when the U.S. government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), through 2013 Intel’s expenditures on buybacks were almost four times the total NNI budget.\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "545036",
"title": "",
"text": "If a company is valued correctly, then paying dividends should lower the share price, and buying back shares should leave the share price unchanged. If the share price is $100, and the company pays a $10 dividend, then either its cash goes down by $10 per share, it is has to borrow money for the same amount, or some mixture. Either way, the value of the company has gone down by $10 per share. If the share price is $100, and the company buys back 10 percent of its shares, then it also has to find the money, just as for the dividend, and the value of the company goes down by 10 percent. However, the number of shares also goes down by 10 percent, so the amount of value per share is the same, and the share price should stay unchanged. Now there are psychological effects. Many people like getting paid dividends, so they will want to own shares of a company paying dividends, so the share price goes up. Similar with a share buyback; the fact that someone buys huge amounts of shares drives the price up. Both effects are purely psychological. A buyback has another effect if the shares are not valued correctly. If the company is worth $100 per share but for some reason the shareprice is down to $50, then after the buyback the value per share has even gone up. Basically the company buys from stupid investors, which increases the value for clever investors holding on to their shares. If the shareprice were $200, then buying back shares would be a stupid move for the company."
},
{
"docid": "151132",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, keep in mind that there are generally 2 ways to buy a corporation's shares: You can buy a share directly from the corporation. This does not happen often; it usually happens at the Initial Public Offering [the first time the company becomes \"\"public\"\" where anyone with access to the stock exchange can become a part-owner], plus maybe a few more times during the corporations existence. In this case, the corporation is offering new ownership in exchange for a price set the corporation (or a broker hired by the corporation). The price used for a public offering is the highest amount that the company believes it can get - this is a very complicated field, and involves many different methods of evaluating what the company should be worth. If the company sets the price too low, then they have missed out on possible value which would be earned by the previous, private shareholders (they would have gotten the same share % of a corporation which would now have more cash to spend, because of increased money paid by new shareholders). If the company sets the price too high, then the share subscription might only be partially filled, so there might not be enough cash to do what the company wanted. You can buy a share from another shareholder. This is more common - when you see the company's share price on the stock exchange, it is this type of transaction - buying out other current shareholders. The price here is simply set based on what current owners are willing to sell at. The \"\"Bid Price\"\" listed by an exchange is the current highest bid that a purchaser is offering for a single share. The \"\"Ask Price\"\" is the current lowest offer that a seller is offering to sell a single share they currently own. When the bid price = the ask price, a share transaction happens, and the most recent stock price changes.\""
},
{
"docid": "259904",
"title": "",
"text": "If you are looking to re-invest it in the same company, there is really no difference. Please be aware that when a company announces dividend, you are not the only person receiving the dividend. The millions of share holders receive the same amount that you did as dividend, and of course, that money is not falling from the sky. The company pays it from their profits. So the day a dividend is announced, it is adjusted in the price of the share. The only reason why you look for dividend in a company is when you need liquidity. If a company does not pay you dividend, it means that they are usually using the profits to re-invest it in the business which you are anyway going to do with the dividend that you receive. (Unless its some shady company which is only established on paper. Then they might use it to feed their dog:p). To make it simpler lets assume you have Rs.500 and you want to start a company which requires Rs 1000 in capital : - 1.) You issue 5 shares worth Rs 100 each to the public and take Rs 100 for each share. Now you have Rs 1000 to start your company. 2.) You make a profit of Rs 200. 3.) Since you own majority of the shares you get to make the call whether to pay Rs.200 in dividend, or re-invest it in the business. Case 1:- You had issued 10 shares and your profit is Rs 200. You pay Rs. 20 each to every share holder. Since you owned 5 shares, you get 5*20 that is Rs.100 and you distribute the remaining to your 5 shareholders and expect to make the same or higher profit next year. Your share price remains at Rs.100 and you have your profits in cash. Case 2:- You think that this business is awesome and you should put more money into it to make more. You decide not to pay any dividend and invest the entire profit into the business. That way your shareholders do not receive anything from you but they get to share profit in the amazing business that you are doing. In this case your share price is Rs. 120 ((1000+200)/10) and all your profits are re-invested in the business. Now put yourself in the shareholders shoes and see which case suits you more. That is the company you should invest in. Please note: - It is very important to understand the business model of the company before you buy anything! Cheers,"
},
{
"docid": "197047",
"title": "",
"text": "Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions."
},
{
"docid": "551893",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock is an ownership interest in a company. There can be multiple classes of shares, but to simplify, assuming only one class of shares, a company issues some number of shares, let's say 1,000,000 shares and you can buy shares of the company. If you own 1,000 shares in this example, you would own one one-thousandth of the company. Public companies have their shares traded on the open market and the price varies as demand for the stock comes and goes relative to people willing to sell their shares. You typically buy stock in a company because you believe the company is going to prosper into the future and thus the value of its stock should rise in the open market. A bond is an indebted interest in a company. A company issues bonds to borrow money at an interest rate specified in the bond issuance and makes periodic payments of principal and interest. You buy bonds in a company to lend the company money at an interest rate specified in the bond because you believe the company will be able to repay the debt per the terms of the bond. The value of a bond as traded on the open exchange varies as the prevailing interest rates vary. If you buy a bond for $1,000 yielding 5% interest and interest rates go up to 10%, the value of your bond in the open market goes down so that the payment terms of 5% on $1,000 matches hypothetical terms of 10% on a lesser principal amount. Whatever lesser principal amount at the new rate would lead to the same payment terms determines the new market value. Alternatively, if interest rates go down, the current value of your bond increases on the open market to make it appear as if it is yielding a lower rate. Regardless of the market value, the company continues to pay interest on the original debt per its terms, so you can always hold onto a bond and get the original promised interest as long as the company does not go bankrupt. So in summary, bonds tend to be a safer investment that offers less potential return. However, this is not always the case, since if interest rates skyrocket, your bond's value will plummet, although you could just hold onto them and get the low rate originally promised."
},
{
"docid": "493438",
"title": "",
"text": "A Company start with say $100. Lets say the max it can borrow from bank is $100 @ $10 a year as Interest. After a years say, On the $200 the company made a profit of $110. So it now has total $310 Option 1: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It further gave away the $100 back to shareholders as dividends. The Balance with company $100. It can again start the second year, borrow from Bank $100 @ 10 interest and restart. Option 2: Company pays back the Bank $100 + $10. It now has $200. It can now borrow $200 from Bank @ $20. After a year it makes a profit of $250. [Economics of scale result $30 more] Quite a few companies in growth phase use Option 2 as they can grow faster, achieve economies of scale, keep competition at bay, etc Now if I had a share of this company say 1 @ $1, by end of first year its value would be $2, at the end of year 2 it would be $3.3. Now there is someone else who wants to buy this share at end of year 1. I would say this share gives me 100% returns every year, so I will not sell at $2. Give me $3 at the end of first year. The buyer would think well, if I buy this at $3, first year I would notionally get $.3 and from then on $1 every year. Not bad. This is still better than other stocks and better than Bank CD etc ... So as long as the company is doing well and expected to do well in future its price keeps on increasing as there is someone who want to buy. Why would someone want to sell and not hold one: 1. Needs cash for buying house or other purposes, close to retirement etc 2. Is balancing the portfolio to make is less risk based 3. Quite a few similar reasons Why would someone feel its right to buy: 1. Has cash and is young is open to small risk 2. Believes the value will still go up further 3. Quite a few similar reasons"
},
{
"docid": "521635",
"title": "",
"text": "I was doing some thinking about this a while back, and it makes absolute perfect sense for Amazon to buy UPS with issued shares. First off, Amazon's stock is overpriced in every form of the word, which means using issued stocks to buy things is the best way to abuse the current situation. It gives even more validity to their share price. Some examples... If lets say Amazon issued 1 extra share for every existing share, it would give them 235 billion of purchasing power. If they used this to buy 235 billion worth of utility companies, the stock price cannot really go down below 235 billion in market cap, because they own 235 billion in real, valuable companies. So if a completely worthless company like the South Seas Company issued stock to buy real businesses, they could make validity to their absurd price. If the South Seas Company had a market cap of 500 billion at their high, and issued 1 share per existing share, and bought 250 billion dollars of businesses and assets, they suddenly became a real company and cannot really go under a market cap of 250 billion. Too bad they didn't, and the company went under almost instantly once the scam was found out. By buying UPS, they gain the company at a discount of the discrepancy of Amazon's price and intrinsic value. But the biggest reason to merge with UPS is for their current customers. So with deliveries, Amazon would have to spend the same amount on their route as UPS. They still have to hire a driver for 8 hours a day, they still have to pay for the same amount of gas, and they stop at more or less the same amount. So your expenses are fixed. Any extra package that Amazon would deliver that they wouldn't before, is almost pure profit. The expenses don't change if the truck is 3/4 full, or full. Which means that all of UPS's business would become almost pure profit. They need to buy UPS or Fedex, making a new service is a huge mistake. It's probably just a bargaining chip in negotiation because of these reasons. Also a side note, Amazon should also buy a huge railroad. They have a part in every inch of this country, and to buy its own method of transportation to transport boxes, which is more fuel and time efficient than trucks makes sense. They would also be able to design a lighter weight train designed to just carry boxes. Sending one truck to a warehouse is much more costly than just attaching a light weight train car heading to that warehouse anyways. Just my two cents if I were CEO of Amazon."
},
{
"docid": "306782",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\""
},
{
"docid": "535605",
"title": "",
"text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt."
},
{
"docid": "330303",
"title": "",
"text": "There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too."
},
{
"docid": "384267",
"title": "",
"text": "Stocks in the Weimar hyperinflation are discussed in When Money Dies. I don't own a copy of the book but here is a link to a blog post about it. Speculation on the stock exchange has spread to all ranks of the population and shares rise like air balloons to limitless heights Basically, the stock market did very well (i.e. the US dollar value of stocks increased quite a lot. Of course, the price of everything increased if measured in marks.) Quote from the article: Bottom line: In marks, stocks had an amazing run. Even in USD they had a nice runup. It makes sense that the stock market would skyrocket because (a) if money has no value, then people will want to replace money with tangible things like goods, and since a stock represents a share in the factories and things which a company owns, it makes sense that you would want them and (b) if money has no value anyway, why not gamble with it? I would be interested to hear what happened in other hyperinflations."
},
{
"docid": "354136",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\""
},
{
"docid": "177093",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\""
},
{
"docid": "569565",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\""
},
{
"docid": "407551",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\""
},
{
"docid": "3656",
"title": "",
"text": "Many companies actually just issue new shares for employee compensation instead of buying back existing ones. So actually, the share price should go down because the same value is now diluted over more shares. In addition, this would not necessarily affect companies with many employees than those with fewer employees because companies with more employees tend to be bigger and thus have more shares (among which the change in demand would be distributed). Also, I think many companies do not issue shares to employees every pay day, but just e.g. once every quarter."
}
] |
6635 | Why don't share prices of a company rise every other Friday when the company buys shares for its own employees? | [
{
"docid": "3656",
"title": "",
"text": "Many companies actually just issue new shares for employee compensation instead of buying back existing ones. So actually, the share price should go down because the same value is now diluted over more shares. In addition, this would not necessarily affect companies with many employees than those with fewer employees because companies with more employees tend to be bigger and thus have more shares (among which the change in demand would be distributed). Also, I think many companies do not issue shares to employees every pay day, but just e.g. once every quarter."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "332826",
"title": "",
"text": "So far buying of own by own companies like Apple, is concerned it will surely raise the price of the script. At some level, the share prices are a factor of supply and demand at a given price. Apple being a very demanded script, its supply in the market goes down with the buy back. After a while, this will surely make the script price rise. It also depends at what price the buy back is affected. If the buy back is done at a right price, it will help the existing shareholder. If a very high price is paid, it will erode shareholders wealth. Hence each buy back needs to be studies separately. There are several and at times complex variables which determines if the buy back is good for continuing shareholders or not."
},
{
"docid": "95806",
"title": "",
"text": "Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict."
},
{
"docid": "450184",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Depends. The short answer is yes; HSBC, for instance, based in New York, is listed on both the LSE and NYSE. Toyota's listed on the TSE and NYSE. There are many ways to do this; both of the above examples are the result of a corporation owning a subsidiary in a foreign country by the same name (a holding company), which sells its own stock on the local market. The home corporation owns the majority holdings of the subsidiary, and issues its own stock on its \"\"home country's\"\" exchange. It is also possible for the same company to list shares of the same \"\"pool\"\" of stock on two different exchanges (the foreign exchange usually lists the stock in the corporation's home currency and the share prices are near-identical), or for a company to sell different portions of itself on different exchanges. However, these are much rarer; for tax liability and other cost purposes it's usually easier to keep American monies in America and Japanese monies in Japan by setting up two \"\"copies\"\" of yourself with one owning the other, and move money around between companies as necessary. Shares of one issue of one company's stock, on one exchange, are the same price regardless of where in the world you place a buy order from. However, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll pay the same actual value of currency for the stock. First off, you buy the stock in the listed currency, which means buying dollars (or Yen or Euros or GBP) with both a fluctuating exchange rate between currencies and a broker's fee (one of those cost savings that make it a good idea to charter subsidiaries; could you imagine millions a day in car sales moving from American dealers to Toyota of Japan, converted from USD to Yen, with a FOREX commission to be paid?). Second, you'll pay the stock broker a commission, and he may charge different rates for different exchanges that are cheaper or more costly for him to do business in (he might need a trader on the floor at each exchange or contract with a foreign broker for a cut of the commission).\""
},
{
"docid": "569565",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\""
},
{
"docid": "545036",
"title": "",
"text": "If a company is valued correctly, then paying dividends should lower the share price, and buying back shares should leave the share price unchanged. If the share price is $100, and the company pays a $10 dividend, then either its cash goes down by $10 per share, it is has to borrow money for the same amount, or some mixture. Either way, the value of the company has gone down by $10 per share. If the share price is $100, and the company buys back 10 percent of its shares, then it also has to find the money, just as for the dividend, and the value of the company goes down by 10 percent. However, the number of shares also goes down by 10 percent, so the amount of value per share is the same, and the share price should stay unchanged. Now there are psychological effects. Many people like getting paid dividends, so they will want to own shares of a company paying dividends, so the share price goes up. Similar with a share buyback; the fact that someone buys huge amounts of shares drives the price up. Both effects are purely psychological. A buyback has another effect if the shares are not valued correctly. If the company is worth $100 per share but for some reason the shareprice is down to $50, then after the buyback the value per share has even gone up. Basically the company buys from stupid investors, which increases the value for clever investors holding on to their shares. If the shareprice were $200, then buying back shares would be a stupid move for the company."
},
{
"docid": "548673",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. \"\"Throwing good money after bad\"\" so to speak. Is investing more money into a stock, you already have a stake in, which has gone up in price; a good idea? Other things being equal, deciding whether to buy more stocks or shares in a company you're already invested in should be made in the same way you would evaluate any investment decision and -- broadly speaking -- should not be influenced by whether an existing holding has gone up or down in value. For instance, given the current price of the stock, prevailing market conditions, and knowledge about the company, if you think there is a reasonable chance that the price will rise in the time-period you are interested in, then you may want to buy (more) stock. If you think there is a reasonable chance the price will fall, then you probably won't want to buy (more) stock. Note: it may be that the past performance of a company is factored into your decision to buy (e.g was a recent downturn merely a \"\"blip\"\", and long-term prospects remain good; or have recent steady rises exhausted the potential for growth for the time being). And while this past performance will have played a part in whether any existing holding went up or down in value, it should only be the past performance -- not whether or not you've gained or lost money -- that affects the new decision. For instance: let us suppose (for reasons that seemed valid at the time) you bought your original holding at £10/share, the price has dropped to £2/share, but you (now) believe both prices were/are \"\"wrong\"\" and that the \"\"true price\"\" should be around £5/share. If you feel there is a good chance of this being achieved then buying shares at £2, anticipating they'll rally to £5, may be sound. But you should be doing this because you think the price will rise to £5, and not because it will offset the loses in your original holding. (You may also want to take stock and evaluate why you thought it a good idea to buy at £10... if you were overly optimistic then, you should probably be asking yourself whether your current decisions (in this or any share) are \"\"sound\"\"). There is one area where an existing holding does come into play: as both jamesqf and Victor rightly point out, keeping a \"\"balanced\"\" portfolio -- without putting \"\"all your eggs in one basket\"\" -- is generally sound advice. So when considering the purchase of additional stock in a company you are already invested in, remember to look at the combined total (old and new) when evaluating how the (potential) purchase will affect your overall portfolio.\""
},
{
"docid": "516561",
"title": "",
"text": "The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet."
},
{
"docid": "12899",
"title": "",
"text": "Full disclosure: I’m an intern for EquityZen, so I’m familiar with this space but can speak with the most accuracy about EquityZen. Observations about other players in the space are my own. The employee liquidity landscape is evolving. EquityZen and Equidate help shareholders (employees, ex-employees, etc.) in private companies get liquidity for shares they already own. ESOFund and 137 Ventures help with option financing, and provide loans (and exotic structures on loans) to cover costs of exercising options and any associated tax hit. EquityZen is a private company marketplace that led the second wave of VC-backed secondary markets starting early 2013. The mission is to help achieve liquidity for employees and other private company shareholder, but in a company-approved way. EquityZen transacts with share transfers and also a proprietary derivative structure which transfers economics of a company's shares without changing voting and information rights. This structure typically makes the transfer process cheaper and faster as less paperwork is involved. Accredited investors find the process appealing because they get access to companies they usually cannot with small check sizes. To address the questions in Dzt's post: 1). EquityZen doesn't take a 'loan shark' approach meaning they don't front shareholders money so that they can purchase their stock. With EquityZen, you’re either selling your shares or selling all the economic risk—upside and downside—in exchange for today’s value. 2). EquityZen only allows company approved deals on the platform. As a result, companies are more friendly towards the process and they tend to allow these deals to take place. Non-company approved deals pose risks for buyers and sellers and are ultimately unsustainable. As a buyer, without company blessing, you’re taking on significant counterparty risk from the seller (will they make good on their promise to deliver shares in the future?) or the risk that the transfer is impermissible under relevant restrictions and your purchase is invalid. As a seller, you’re running the risk of violating your equity agreements, which can have severe penalties, like forfeiture of your stock. Your shares are also much less marketable when you’re looking to transact without the company’s knowledge or approval. 3). Terms don't change depending an a shareholder's situation. EquityZen is a professional company and values all of the shareholders that use the platform. It’s a marketplace so the market sets the price. In other situations, you may be at the mercy of just one large buyer. This can happen when you’re facing a big tax bill on exercise but don’t have the cash (because you have the stock). 4). EquityZen doesn't offer loans so this is a non issue. 5). Not EquityZen! EquityZen creates a clean break from the economics. It’s not uncommon for the loan structures to use an interest component as well as some other complications, like upside participation and and also a liquidation preference. EquityZen strives for a simple structure where you’re not on the hook for the downside and you’ve transferred all the upside as well."
},
{
"docid": "352894",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Offtopic, but what do you think of the idea of the stock market being a \"\"ponzi scheme\"\"? I've had this same idea that [Mark Cuban reiterated well by writing](http://blogmaverick.com/2008/09/08/talking-stocks-and-money/): >Ive said a lot of this before. The stock market is by definition a ponzi scheme. As long as money keeps on coming in, then there is someone to take the stocks from the sellers. If the amount of money coming in is reduced, the stocks, indexes, et al go down. What if, for who knows whatever reason, the amount of money going into stocks declined significantly ? Who would buy stock from the sellers. I mean goodness gracious, you could see something disastrous happen. Like the Nasdaq dropping from 5000, to under 2000 in just a few years. Its happened before, it can happen again. > >Which is exactly why we get all these nonsensical commercials from brokerages. To keep the money coming in . I wish someone would index the amount of money spent on marketing by mutual funds and brokerages to the Nasdaq and Dow and see if it correlates. > >Money inflows drives the business. We can get all the economic data we ever dreamed of getting, but if money inflows declined significantly for an extended period of time, then every rule of thumb would go out the window until money started flowing in. Yes it would flow in eventually as prices dropped. From big investors like me who wouldnt have gotten hurt by a huge market decline and could come in and buy huge chunks, or companies outright. > >You ? You probably would be like Charles Ponzi’s customers. You wouldnt be able to get your money out of the fund when it went down, and by the time you did, it would be too late. You would have been crushed. > >Ive said it before, a stock that doesnt pay dividends is valued like a baseball card. Just whatever you can sell it for. The concept that you own “your share” of the company is a joke. You are completely at the whim of the CEO and board who will dilute you on a daily basis with stock options, then try to buy back stock to cover it up and push up the price, rewarding the shareholders who get out, rather than those that continue to hold the shares. Meaning you. > >Have you ever seen Warren Buffet talk about buying 100 shares of anything k shares ? or does he take control of , or purchase a material percentage of a company ? > >If you have enough money to have influence , take control or buy it outright, then the stock market can work for you. Thats why I buy stock in public companies that relate to my other business entities. When i pick up the phone and call the CEO of a company i own shares in, they call me back very quickly. When I ask if there are business opportunities that make sense for the company and another company of mine to work together, I wont always get the business, but I will always get a meeting. If Im smart about the investments I make, the more important returns come from the relationships with the companies than the action of the stock. > >If the best you can do is buy shares that are going to be continuously diluted, then you are merely a sucker. There is a good chance that the shares you bought came from shares an insider who got stock options. You just helped dilute yourself with your first share purchase. > >The wealthy can make the stockmarket work for them. Individuals buying shares of stock in non dividend paying stocks… they work for the stockmarket. > >I know Ive painted a pretty bleak picture. > >The stockmarket isnt going away. Would it shock me if the whole thing collapsed ? yes. it would. Its just too engrained in our way of life in the USA. What would change my mind is if a better investment vehicle came along. > >The stockmarket used to be about investing capital in companies that came public or did secondary offerings. That money was used to create amazing businesses and return dividends back to people who truly were investors. There once was a day where most companies paid dividends higher than the interest rates on their bonds. Why ? Because stocks are inherently more risky. If a company goes belly up, bondholders collect first, shareholders usually last. People could buy and hold stocks, and get paid real cash money for being a shareholder in the company at rates far higher than the divident yields we see today. If the company did well, the dividends went up. Investors who held, actually got all their money back in dividends at some point and the rest was gravy. The good ole days. > >But that changed when mutual funds came along and started marketing the concept of growth as a way to attract investors. > >Its not inconceivable that the old mindset could comeback. That a new market of stocks could be created where companies didnt continuously dilute shareholders by issuing stock and options to themselves. Where earnings were earned for the same reason they are in private companies, to not only fund growth, but also provide cash back to investors. Now if that market existed today. Where I could buy 100 shares of stock, and even if it represented just 1/100000 of ownership in the company, I could have confidence that year after year, I would still own 1/100000th of that company, and if that company generated earnings , I would have at least some of that money returned to me. Well then, that wouldnt be a ponzi scheme. That would be a true market of stocks, and I would be happy to recommend to anyone to be careful, but buying stocks in that market could be something worth considering if your appetite for risk canhandle it.\""
},
{
"docid": "491064",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That's a pretty good question for a six-year-old! In addition to the good answers which point out that expectations are priced in, let's deny the premises of the question: Sales do not increase the value of a company; a company could be, for example, losing money on every sale. Share prices are (at least in theory) correlated with profits. So let's suppose that company X is unprofitable 320 days a year and is relying upon sales in late November and December to be in the black for the year. (Hence \"\"black Friday\"\".) Carefully examine the supposition of this scenario: we have a company that is so unprofitable that it must gamble everything on successfully convincing bargain hunting consumers in a weak economy to buy stuff they don't actually need from them and not a competitor. Why would this inspire investor confidence? There are plenty of companies that fail to meet their sales targets at Christmas, for plenty of reasons.\""
},
{
"docid": "579037",
"title": "",
"text": "This question is very open ended. But I'll try to answer parts of it. An employer can offer shares as part of a compensation package. Instead of paying cash the employer can use the money to buy up shares and give them to the employees. This is done to keep employees for longer periods of time and the employer may also want to create more insider ownership for a number of reasons. Another possibility is issuance of secondary offerings that are partially given to employees. Secondary offerings often lower the price of the shares in the market and create an incentive for employees to stay until the stock price rises. All of these conditions can be stipulated, look up golden handcuffs. Usually stock gifts are only given to a few high level employees and as part of a bonus package. It is very unusual to see a mature company regularly give away large amounts of stock, as this is a frowned upon practice. Start ups often pay their employees with stock up until the company is acquired or goes public."
},
{
"docid": "341424",
"title": "",
"text": "It has got to do with market perceptions and expectation and the perceived future prospects of the company. Usually the expectation of a company's results are already priced into the share price, so if the results deviate from these expectations, the share price can move up or down respectfully. For example, many times a company's share price may be beaten down for increasing profits by 20% above the previous year when the expectation was that it would increase profits by 30%. Other times a company's share price may rise sharply for making a 20% loss when the expectation was that it would make a 30% loss. Then there is also a company's prospects for future growth and performance. A company may be heading into trouble, so even though they made a $100M profit this year, the outlook for the company may be bleak. This could cause the share price to drop accordingly. Conversely, a company may have made a loss of $100M but its is turning a corner after reducing costs and restructuring. This can be seen as a positive for the future causing the share price to rise. Also, a company making $100M in profits would not put that all into the bank. It may pay dividends with some, it may put some more towards growing the business, and it might keep some cash available in case cash-flows fluctuate during the year."
},
{
"docid": "42625",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This question drives at what value a shareholder actually provides to a corporation, and by extent, to the economy. If you subscribe for new shares (like in an Initial Public Offering), it is very straightforward to say \"\"I have provided capital to the corporation, which it is using to advance its business.\"\" If you buy shares that already exist (like in a typical share purchase on a public exchange), your money doesn't go to the company. Instead, it goes to someone who paid someone who paid someone who paid someone (etc.) who originally contributed money to the corporation. In theory, the value of a share price does not directly impact the operation of the company itself, apart from what @DanielCarson aptly noted (employee stock options are affected by share price, impacting morale, etc.). This is because in theory, the true value of a company (and thus, the value of a share) is the present value of all future cashflows (dividends + final liquidation). This means that in a technical sense, a company's share price should result from the company's value. The company's true value does not result from the share price. But what you are doing as a shareholder is impacting the liquidity available to other potential investors (also as mentioned by @DanielCarson, in reference to the desirability for future financing). The more people who invest their money in the stock market, the more liquid those stocks become. This is the true value you add to the economy by investing in stocks - you add liquidity to the market, decreasing the risk of capital investment generally. The fewer people there are who are willing to invest in a particular company, the harder it is for an investor to buy or sell shares at will. If it is difficult to sell shares in a company, the risk of holding shares in that company is higher, because you can't \"\"cash out\"\" as easily. This increased risk then does change the value of the shares - because even though the corporation's internal value is the same, the projected cashflows of the shares themselves now has a question mark around the ability to sell when desired. Whether this actually has an impact on anything depends on how many people join you in your declaration of ethical investing. Like many other forms of social activism, success relies on joint effort. This goes beyond the direct and indirect impacts mentioned above; if 'ethical investing' becomes more pronounced, it may begin to stigmatize the target companies (fewer people wanting to work for 'blacklist' corporations, fewer people buying their products, etc.).\""
},
{
"docid": "177093",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price \"\"may\"\" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore \"\"may\"\" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course.\""
},
{
"docid": "245867",
"title": "",
"text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees."
},
{
"docid": "200928",
"title": "",
"text": "Ignoring taxes, a share repurchase has exactly the same effect on the company and the shareholders' wealth as a cash dividend. In either case, the company is disbursing cash to its shareholders; in the former, in exchange for shares which shareholders happen to be selling on the market at the time; in the latter, equally to all shareholders. For those shareholders who do not happen to be selling their shares, a share repurchase by a company is equivalent to a shareholder's reinvestment of a cash dividend in additional shares of the same company. The only difference is the total number of shares left outstanding. Your shares after a share buyback represent ownership of a greater fraction of the company, since in effect the company is buying out other shareholders on your behalf. Theoretically, a share buyback leaves the price of the stock unchanged, whereas a cash dividend tends to reduce the price of the stock by exactly the amount of the dividend, (notwithstanding underlying earnings.) This is because a share buyback concentrates your ownership in the company, but at the same time, the company as a whole is devalued by the exact amount of cash disbursed to buy back shares. Taxwise, a share buyback generally allows you to treat your share of the company's profits as capital gains---and quite possibly defer taxes on it as long as you own the stock. You usually have to pay taxes on dividends at the time they are paid. However, dividends are sometimes seen as instilling discipline in management, because it's a very public and obvious sign of distress for a company to cut its dividend, whereas a share repurchase plan can often be quietly withdrawn without drawing that much attention. A third alternative to a dividend or a share repurchase is for the company to find profitable projects to reinvest its earnings in, and attempt to grow the company as a whole (in the hopes of even greater earnings in the future) rather than distribute current earnings back to shareholders. (A company may alse use its earnings to pay down or repurchase debt, as well.) As to your second question, the SEC has certain rules that regulate the timing and price of share repurchases on the open market."
},
{
"docid": "287092",
"title": "",
"text": "It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns. If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash. If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money. If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners. Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company."
},
{
"docid": "153212",
"title": "",
"text": "Why is the stock trading at only $5 per share? The share price is the perceived value of the company by people buying and selling the stock. Not the actual value of the company and all its assets. Generally if the company is not doing well, there is a perceived risk that it will burn out the money fast. There is a difference between its signed conditional sale and will get money and has got money. So in short, it's trading at $5 a share because the market doesn't feel like it's worth $12 per share. Quite a few believe there could be issues faced; i.e. it may not make the $12, or there will be additional obligations, i.e. employees may demand more layoff compensation, etc. or the distribution may take few years due to regulatory and legal hurdles. The only problem is the stock exchange states if the company has no core business, the stock will be suspended soon (hopefully they can release the $12 per share first). What will happen if I hold shares in the company, the stock gets suspended, and its sitting on $12 per share? Can it still distribute it out? Every country and stock markets have laid out procedures for de-listing a company and closing a company. The company can give $10 as say dividends and remaining later; or as part of the closure process, the company will distribute the balance among shareholders. This would be a long drawn process."
},
{
"docid": "394226",
"title": "",
"text": "Theoretically, yes, you can only buy or sell whole shares (which is why you still have .16 shares in your account; you can't sell that fraction on the open market). This is especially true for voting stock; stock which gives you voting rights in company decisions makes each stock one vote, so effectively whomever controls the majority of one stock gets that vote. However, various stock management policies on the part of the shareholder, brokerage firm or the issuing company can result in you owning fractional shares. Perhaps the most common is a retirement account or other forward-planning account. In such situations, it's the dollar amount that counts; when you deposit money you expect the money to be invested in your chosen mix of mutual funds and other instruments. If the whole-shares rule were absolute, and you wanted to own, for instance, Berkshire Hathaway stock, and you were contributing a few hundred a month, it could take you your entire career of your contributions sitting in a money-market account (essentially earning nothing) before you could buy even one share. You are virtually guaranteed in such situations to end up owning fractions of shares in an investment account. In these situations, it's usually the fund manager's firm that actually holds title to the full share (part of a pool they maintain for exactly this situation), and your fractional ownership percentage is handled purely with accounting; they give you your percentage of the dividends when they're paid out, and marginal additional investments increase your actual holdings of the share until you own the whole thing. If you divest, the firm sells the share of which you owned a fraction (or just holds onto it for the next guy fractionally investing in the stock; no need to pay unnecessary broker fees) and pays you that fraction of the sale price. Another is dividend reinvestment; the company may indicate that instead of paying a cash dividend, they will pay a stock dividend, or you yourself may indicate to the broker that you want your dividends given to you as shares of stock, which the broker will acquire from the market and place in your account. Other common situations include stock splits that aren't X-for-1. Companies often aren't looking to halve their stock price by offering a two-for-one split; they may think a smaller figure like 50% or even smaller is preferable, to fine tune their stock price (and thus P/E ratio and EPS figures) similar to industry competitors or to companies with similar market capitalization. In such situations they can offer a split that's X-for-Y with X>Y, like a 3-for-2, 5-for-3 or similar. These are relatively uncommon, but they do happen; Home Depot's first stock split, in 1987, was a 3-for-2. Other ratios are rare, and MSFT has only ever been split 2-for-1. So, it's most likely that you ended up with the extra sixth of a share through dividend reinvestment or a broker policy allowing fractional-share investment."
}
] |
6635 | Why don't share prices of a company rise every other Friday when the company buys shares for its own employees? | [
{
"docid": "156358",
"title": "",
"text": "Pre-Enron many companies forced the 401K match to be in company shares. That is no longer allowed becasue of changes in the law. Therefore most employees have only a small minority of their retirement savings in company shares. I know the ESOP and 401K aren't the same, but in my company every year the number of participants in the company stock purchase program decreases. The small number of participants and the small portion of their new retirement funds being in company shares would mean this spike in volume would be very small. The ESOP plan for my employer takes money each paycheck, then purchases the shares once a quarter. This delay would allow them to manage the purchases better. I know with a previous employer most ESOP participants only held the shares for the minimum time, thus providing a steady steam of shares being sold."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "287092",
"title": "",
"text": "It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns. If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash. If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money. If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners. Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company."
},
{
"docid": "54257",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your \"\"aye\"\" or \"\"nay\"\" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share). We can say, however, that a fall to \"\"effectively zero\"\" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded \"\"over the counter\"\" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough).\""
},
{
"docid": "44666",
"title": "",
"text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\""
},
{
"docid": "546075",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is \"\"The Stock Market\"\". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500. The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big \"\"Blue Chip\"\" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund. As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time. So for example, if Microsoft increases its dividend payment by 100% over a ten year period , all of the shares you buy today at a 2.5% yield will, in 10 years, have a higher 5% yield. A bond on the other hand will never increase its yield over time. If it pays out 4%, that's all it will ever pay. You want to invest because you want to grow your money and if you want to invest passively the fastest way to do that is through index ETFs like the $SPY, $IVV, and $RSP. Also look into the $XIV, it's an inverse VIX ETF, it moves 5x faster than the S&P in the same direction. If you want to actively trade your money, you can grow it even faster by getting into things like options, highly volatile penny stocks, shorting stocks, and futures. Don't get involved in FX or currency trading, unless it through futures.\""
},
{
"docid": "339854",
"title": "",
"text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability."
},
{
"docid": "572351",
"title": "",
"text": "Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains. In fact just because a company pays a dividend, would you still buy it if the share price kept decreasing year after year? Lets put it this way: Company A makes record profits year after year, continually keeps beating market expectations, its share price keeps going up, but it pays no dividend instead reinvests its profits to continually grow the business. Company B pays a dividend instead of reinvesting to grow the business, it has been surprising the market on the downside for a few years now, it has had some profit warnings lately and its share price has consistently been dropping for over a year. Which company would you be interested in buying out of the two? I know I would be interested in buying Company A, and I would definitely stay away from Company B. Company A may or may not pay dividends in the future, but if Company B continues on this path it will soon run out of money to pay dividends. Most market gains are made through capital gains rather than dividends, and most people invest in the hope the shares they buy go up in price over time. Dividends can be one attractant to investors but they are not the only one."
},
{
"docid": "95806",
"title": "",
"text": "Remember that shares represent votes at the shareholders' meeting. If share price drops too far below the value of that percentage of the company, the company gets bought out and taken over. This tends to set a minimum share price derived from the company's current value. The share price may rise above that baseline if people expect it to be worth more in the future, or drop s bit below if people expect awful news. That's why investment is called speculation. If the price asked is too high to be justified by current guesses, nobody buys. That sets the upper limit at any given time. Since some of this is guesswork, the market is not completely rational. Prices can drop after good news if they'd been inflated by the expectation of better news, for example. In general, businesses which don't crash tend to grow. Hence the market as a whole generally trends upward if viewed on a long timescale. But there's a lot of noise on that curve; short term or single stocks are much harder to predict."
},
{
"docid": "407551",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Also note that a share of voting stock is a vote at the stockholder's meeting, whether it's dividend or non-dividend. That has value to the company and major stockholders in terms of protecting their own interests, and has value to anyone considering a takeover of the company or who otherwise wants to drive the company's policy. Similarly, if the company is bought out, the share will generally be replaced by shares in whatever the new owning company is. So it really does represent \"\"a slice of the company\"\" in several vary practical ways, and thus has fairly well-defined intrinsic value linked to the company's perceived value. If its price drops too low the company becomes more vulnerable to hostile takeover, which means the company itself will often be motivated to buy back shares to protect itself from that threat. One of the questions always asked when making an investment is whether you're looking for growth (are you hoping its intrinsic value will increase) or income (are you hoping it will pay you a premium for owning it). Non-dividend stocks are a pure growth bet. Dividend-paying stocks are typically a mixture of growth and income, at various trade-off points. What's right for you depends on your goals, timeframe, risk tolerance, and what else is already in your portfolio.\""
},
{
"docid": "197047",
"title": "",
"text": "Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal. Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions: **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million. 2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0% **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%. **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions."
},
{
"docid": "399345",
"title": "",
"text": "A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't. A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything. The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash. It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low."
},
{
"docid": "313421",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index. That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the \"\"Dow divisor\"\". (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.) This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price. That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google. It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share. Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index. That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day. Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share. At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share. So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index. Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason. (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now. Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go. Most indices are weighted by market capitalization. That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value. This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok. Also, notice that I said \"\"company\"\" and not \"\"stock\"\". When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow. (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500. The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations. The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand. If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked. (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)\""
},
{
"docid": "101551",
"title": "",
"text": "Companies already have to protect themselves against employees trading the company's shares with insider information. They typically do that in a number of ways: Taken together, this tends to mostly mitigate the risk of employees trading with insider information, though it's probably not perfect. In practice, the company itself's knowledge of insider information is the same as that of its senior management. So it makes sense for a company to be allowed to trade under the same conditions as its senior management. From https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2013/03/14/questions-surrounding-share-repurchases/ : If the company is repurchasing outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan, it should limit its purchases to open window periods when officers and directors are able to buy and sell securities of the company. In addition, the company also can choose to disclose any material non-public information prior to any share repurchase if it is in possession of material non-public information at a time when it is seeking to make a share repurchase outside of a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. As mentioned in the quote, a company can also set up a trading plan in advance (at a time when it doesn't have inside information) to be executed unconditionally in the future. Then even if the company comes into possession of inside information, it won't be using this knowledge to direct trades."
},
{
"docid": "498676",
"title": "",
"text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\""
},
{
"docid": "321108",
"title": "",
"text": "A Breakdown of Stock Buy Backs has this bottom line on it: Are share buybacks good or bad? As is so often the case in finance, the question may not have a definitive answer. If a stock is undervalued and a buyback truly represents the best possible investment for a company, the buyback - and its effects - can be viewed as a positive sign for shareholders. Watch out, however, if a company is merely using buybacks to prop up ratios, provide short-term relief to an ailing stock price or to get out from under excessive dilution. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/041702.asp#ixzz3ZHdOf2dJ What is the reason that a company like AAPL is buying back its own shares? Offsetting dilution would be my main thought here as many employees may exercise options putting more stock out there that the company buys back stock to balance things. Does it have too much cash and it doesn't know what to do with it? No as it could do dividends if it wanted to give it back to investors. So it is returning the cash back to investors? Not quite. While some investors may get cash from Apple, I'd suspect most shareholders aren't likely to see cash unless they are selling their shares so I wouldn't say yes to this without qualification. At the same time, the treasury shares Apple has can be used to give options to employees or be used in acquisitions for a couple of other purposes."
},
{
"docid": "499154",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\""
},
{
"docid": "545036",
"title": "",
"text": "If a company is valued correctly, then paying dividends should lower the share price, and buying back shares should leave the share price unchanged. If the share price is $100, and the company pays a $10 dividend, then either its cash goes down by $10 per share, it is has to borrow money for the same amount, or some mixture. Either way, the value of the company has gone down by $10 per share. If the share price is $100, and the company buys back 10 percent of its shares, then it also has to find the money, just as for the dividend, and the value of the company goes down by 10 percent. However, the number of shares also goes down by 10 percent, so the amount of value per share is the same, and the share price should stay unchanged. Now there are psychological effects. Many people like getting paid dividends, so they will want to own shares of a company paying dividends, so the share price goes up. Similar with a share buyback; the fact that someone buys huge amounts of shares drives the price up. Both effects are purely psychological. A buyback has another effect if the shares are not valued correctly. If the company is worth $100 per share but for some reason the shareprice is down to $50, then after the buyback the value per share has even gone up. Basically the company buys from stupid investors, which increases the value for clever investors holding on to their shares. If the shareprice were $200, then buying back shares would be a stupid move for the company."
},
{
"docid": "388065",
"title": "",
"text": "Most of the time when a stock splits to create more shares, it is done to bring the price per share down to a level that makes potential investors more comfortable. There are psychological reasons why some companies keep the price in the $30 to $60 range. Others like to have the price keep rising into the hundreds or thousands a share. The split doesn't help current investors, with the possible exception that the news spurs interest in the stock which leads to a short term rise in prices; but it also doesn't hurt current investors. When a reverse stock split is done, the purpose is for one of several reasons:"
},
{
"docid": "573077",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\""
},
{
"docid": "287227",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think you have to go back to [this HBR article](https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) to really understand: TLDR: Buybacks boost CEO pay and hurt the long term value of companies. But I'm not convinced that they're \"\"the root of inequality\"\" \"\"Consider the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.\"\" \"\"Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. \"\" \"\"Trillions of dollars that could have been spent on innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy over the past three decades have instead been used to buy back shares for what is effectively stock-price manipulation.\"\" \"\" Most are now done on the open market, and my research shows that they often come at the expense of investment in productive capabilities and, consequently, aren’t great for long-term shareholders.\"\" \"\"Research by the Academic-Industry Research Network, a nonprofit I cofounded and lead, shows that companies that do buybacks never resell the shares at higher prices.\"\" \"\"Many academics have warned that if U.S. companies don’t start investing much more in research and manufacturing capabilities, they cannot expect to remain competitive in a range of advanced technology industries. \"\" Specific examples: \"\"Pharmaceutical drugs. In response to complaints that U.S. drug prices are at least twice those in any other country, Pfizer and other U.S. pharmaceutical companies have argued that the profits from these high prices—enabled by a generous intellectual-property regime and lax price regulation—permit more R&D to be done in the United States than elsewhere. Yet from 2003 through 2012, Pfizer funneled an amount equal to 71% of its profits into buybacks, and an amount equal to 75% of its profits into dividends. In other words, it spent more on buybacks and dividends than it earned and tapped its capital reserves to help fund them. The reality is, Americans pay high drug prices so that major pharmaceutical companies can boost their stock prices and pad executive pay.\"\" \"\"Nanotechnology. Intel executives have long lobbied the U.S. government to increase spending on nanotechnology research. In 2005, Intel’s then-CEO, Craig R. Barrett, argued that “it will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology.” Yet from 2001, when the U.S. government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), through 2013 Intel’s expenditures on buybacks were almost four times the total NNI budget.\"\"\""
}
] |
6644 | How to know precisely when a SWIFT is issued by a bank? | [
{
"docid": "175035",
"title": "",
"text": "I think technically the MIR includes the date of issuance but not the time, see the references here. What you have there looks like a timestamp followed by the MIR. If you look at this example from IBM they also show the input time as a separate field."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "117145",
"title": "",
"text": "\"If you want your bank to pay $1 to a beneficiary Bob, then the service (no matter how implemented) needs to result in Bob's bank saying to Bob \"\"Hey, I owe you $1\"\". The usual way how this is done consists of two parts - your bank needs to somehow tell Bob's bank \"\"hey guys, do us a favor and please give Bob $1 with a message from the sender\"\", and your bank needs to convince the other bank that they'll pay for (cover) that. This is the main source for the delays in international payments - there are thousands of banks, and most of possible pairs have no legal contact between themselves whatsoever, no bilateral agreements, no trust and no reasonable enforcement mechanism for small claims. If I'm Bob's bank, then a random bank from anywhere from Switzerland to Nigeria can send me an instruction \"\"give Bob $1, we'll make it up for you\"\", the SWIFT network is a common way of doing this. However, most likely I'm going to give Bob the money only after I receive the funds somehow, which means that they have given the money to some institution I work with. For payments within a single country, it often is a centralized exchange or a central bank, and the payment speed is then determined by the details of that particular single payment network - e.g. UK Faster Payments or the various systems used in USA. For international payments, it may require a chain of multiple intermediaries (correspondent banks) - for example, a payment of $1mm from Kazakhstan to China will likely involve the Kazakhstan bank asking their main correspondent in USA (some major bank such as Chase JPMorgan) to give the money to the relevant chinese bank's correspondent in USA (say, Citi) to then give the money to that chinese bank to then give the money to the actual recipient. Each of those steps can happen because those entities have bilateral agreements, trust and accounts with each other; and each of those steps generally takes time and verification. If you want all payments to happen instantly, then you need all institutions to join a single binding payment system. It's not as easy as it sounds, as it is a nightmare of jurisdiction - for example, if you'd want me (as Bob's bank) to credit Bob instantly, then the system needs to provide solid guarantees that I would get paid even if (a) the payer institution changes its mind, made a mistake or intentional fraud; (b) the payer institution goes insolvent; (c) the system provider gets insolvent. Providing such guarantees is expensive, they need to be backed by multi-billion capital, and they're unrealistic to enforce across jurisdictions (e.g. would an Iranian bank get recourse if some funds got blocked because of USA sanctions). The biggest such project as far as I know is SEPA, across most of Europe. Visa and MasterCard networks perform the same function - a merchant gets paid by the CC network even if the payer can't pay his CC bill or the paying bank goes insolvent.\""
},
{
"docid": "210347",
"title": "",
"text": "\"APY stands for Annual Percentage Yield, a calculation done by the financial institution to make simple comparisons of account value after 1 year between competing accounts. The APY includes the effects of compound interest regardless of the rate of interest, so the simple answer is: no, your return is only your principle multiplied by the APY after a year. Credit Unions are more member participatory than a bank, so the name \"\"share\"\" implies that you own a share of the credit union and it's future. It's possible that the CU could elect to pay a dividend on top of your interest rate. Since you have the option to credit the dividend to the share certificate account or another place, it seems that interest would be paid on the dividends left in the SC on the compounding schedule at the contracted rate. You would have to look at the terms of the account to verify precisely when the dividend is payed, whether it's a value above and beyond the interest, and how it is compounded into our account.\""
},
{
"docid": "379065",
"title": "",
"text": "There are multiple ways in which you can get money to India; - Citi Bank / HDFC Bank offere similar services [and the credit account can be ICICI Bank] - Ask for a Wire/SWIFT transfer, there would be some changes [in the range of USD 30] - Ask for a company check, it would take around 30 days for you to encash in into your bank account in India."
},
{
"docid": "376499",
"title": "",
"text": "The two banks involved may have different policies about honoring the check. It might not be written on the check. Your bank may decide that the stale check has to be treated differently and will withhold funds for a longer period of time before giving you access to the money. They will give time for the first bank to refuse to honor the check. They may be concerned about insufficient funds, the age of the check, and the fact that the original account could have been closed. If you are concerned about the age of the check. You could go to your bank in person, instead of using deposit by ATM, scanner, or smart phone. This allows you to talk to a knowledgeable person. And if they are going to treat the check differently or reject the check, they can let you know right away. The audit may not have been concerned about the fact that the check hadn't been cashed because when they did the audit the check was still considered fresh. Some companies will contact you eventually to reissue the check so you they can get the liability off their books. If the bank does refuse the check contact the company to see how you can get a replacement check issued. They may want proof the check can't be cashed so they don't have to worry about paying you twice."
},
{
"docid": "245355",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I can, but it takes a significant amount of time. I'll do a short version which unfortunatley might leave more holes than you like. Basically, traders don't want to barter because it is hard to find the person with precisely the goods you want who wants to trade for the goods you have. Thus the need for \"\"coupons\"\" that represent value in a marketplace. Then you need to decide who gets to create coupons. If too many can issue them, problems arise, and no one trusts the coupons will be good later. Eventually you want one large bank/nation/trader to be able to issue them so everyone has the same level of trust in them, and you don't have the economic inefficiencies of many coupon issuers. Next, the number of coupons needs to be enough to facilitate trade. If the amount of trade increases a lot, and the number of coupons doesn't increase similarly they become worth more, and people start to hoard them. This causes deflation, which causes less investment, which causes less growth, which hurts everyone in the long run. If there are too many coupons added, this causes inflation, which causes people to spent them quicker instead of holding them. For reasons I won't cover here slight, predictable inflation is much better than deflation, so remember inflation is slightly preferred. Note that inflation is often caused not by the number of coupons but by external price changes. Now, for a modern economy to do well, somone has to watch the economy, measure it carefully, and add/subtract coupons into the system as needed. Coupons, like all money, have no real value (whatever that means), but only have value because the holder expects to be able to trade them *later* for goods and services. You cannot eat coupons, use them for shelter (usually!), or wear them, but you want to trade them for such needs. The same is true for paper money, gold, stones, or almost whatever money system one uses. Money in all these forms is merely an IOU tradable for future goods. The Fed is tasked (among other things) with making sure there is precisely enough coupons in the economy to keep trade functioning as well as possible. This is very hard to do since there are external and internal shocks to an economy (think disaster, foreign govts shutting off resources, rapid changes in people's tastes, etc.). Central banks such as the Fed need to be independent of political control, since empirical evidence has shown that politicians tend to add more money to the system than is needed, because the short term gains give them votes, but the long term consequences (rapid inflation, unemployment, lower economic growth) are bad for society. This is why the Fed is largely out of congressional control, and large amounts of empirical evidence across hundreds of years and dozens of cultures shows this to be good. Note: another function of the Fed is to be a lender of last resort to help prevent bank panics that were widespread in the 18th and early 19th century, something that none of us now remember, but it was a real problem. I'll skip that part for now. So now we're at the point where the Fed needs to add/subtract coupons from society. To do this part justice takes significant time to cover all the reasons why various rules are in place (banking reserve requirements, for example), and you cannot learn it from one pass of reading. But I'll try. Instead of being like the majority of internet fools that rail against the system, try to learn the *why* of all this, and you'll be much wiser and understand that it is all a pretty good system. One method they use is the interbank lending rate. Banks have a reserve requirement, which is the ratio of coupons they need to have on hand as a ratio compared to the total coupons depositors lent them. This is usually around 1:10. The amount deposited that they can lend goes to business loans, school loans, mortgage loans, etc., and helps economies grow. Now when a bank on a given day falls short due to too many withdrawals, other banks (or the Fed) offers an overnight loan to meet reserve requirements, and the Fed sets the interest rate, which in turn drives other interest rates in the system. This does not change the money supply very much. Secondly, the Fed sets the reserve requirement, which vastly can change the amount of money available to society. But they change this rate so rarely (all the historical data is on the St. Loius Fed site, among others) that it is not usually an issue. I'll explain below how this can drastically change the money supply though the money multiplier. Thirdly, and this is the part the poster above seems upset about, they conduct open market operations. This is the primary means by which the Fed exercises control over the number of coupons in play. The government, like businesses, like individuals, often needs to borrow money, in theory to invest in wise causes like infrastructure or perhaps money making enterprises such as technology investmeny (and I know what they often use the money for causes many to complain). The government, like companies, offers the sale of various contracts such as bonds to investors, who want a place to park some accumulated coupons for safety, and they get a return plus some interest. So the government sells bonds on the open market to investors, banks, pensions, foreign governments, basically to whomever wishes to purchase them at the market rate, and the government, like many individuals and banks, uses these loans to perform day to day functioning and possible smooth out volatility in spending needs. By law the Fed cannot purchase directly from Treasury. Now, once on the market, these bonds are traded, packaged, resold, etc., since they have inherent value, and since those owning them want to buy/sell them, perhaps before maturity date. This \"\"liquidity\"\" (ability to sell your goods) is necessary - fewer would purchase an item if they could not sell it when they desire. Thus bonds are bought, sold, and traded, and their prices fluctuate based on what the market thinks they are worth, just like any good. Now, the Fed can buy/sell these bonds on the *open market*, like anyone else. So when the Fed wishes to increase the money supply, they can buy bonds that are not \"\"spendable\"\" money and inject money into the system. Note they now hold a bond that had at the time of transaction the same value as the money they injected. Note investors freely bought these from Treasury, meaning the market thought at the time of purchase that this was a good invesement. It is *not* the government merely wishing more money into existance. It is market forces that require more money for trades and is selling goods from the marketplace of (presumably) equal value to the Fed. This increases liquidity, but takes valuable assets from circulation. When the Fed wishes to shrink the money supply, they sell these bonds back into circulation basically by offering better terms than Treasury. In fact, you can find graphs of the Fed operations and see how every December they inject money for more Christmas shpping (need more coupons for more trade) and every January they extract some. So open market transactions, buying and selling goods at market prices in the marketplace along with other traders, is how the Fed injects and removes money from the money supply. This is the primary mechanism that the Fed uses to control the number of coupons in the economy. Finally, a little about reserve requirements and the money multiplier, since it affects so much of the number of coupons in play. This also I must simplify drastically. Each bank needs to hold 1/10 of all deposits in cash. The rest can be lent, which lands in another bank, which again can be lent, etc... Thus each $1 deposited can result in loans totalling 9/10 + (9/10)^2 + (9/10)^3 +... = 9 more dollars. Many people claim that banks are printing money, which is nonsense, since each also has an equal debt to pay to the person they borrowed from. When all loans are paid back there is no net money gain. However, this allows for each $1 the Fed injects by buying bonds for there to be up to $9 in the economy, *if banks all loan to the fullest extent*. Banks tend to want to loan since loaned money makes them profit. Banks used to loan too much and runs on the banks caused significant problems, which is why laws were made to require *all* banks to have the same reserve requirement. Now, when banks get scared and stop loaning, this 9 fold multiplier dries up, and the Fed has much less inpact on being able to target the proper number of coupons to keep the economy smooth. During the recent crash when banks stopped loaning, as each dollar was paid back on debts, there was significant shrinkage of available money for transactions, and this kills the economy. This is the \"\"liquidity crisis\"\". Hope this helps. As I said, this is vastly simplified and I cannot go into all the reasons and historical items needed to understand it fully. It is a vastly complex (and necessarily so) and takes significant study to grasp the genius of it. It's similar to not being able to understand nuances of particle physics in one go, but as you study and work at it you see *why* things go as they do, and you learn all the failed methods (the gold standard is one example) that were thrown out for many good reasons. Cheers.\""
},
{
"docid": "125966",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Still waiting, still not seeing any that have.. When you debate someone, in a forum or somewhere other than your armchair, I suggest you forget about trying to demand a opposite answer from someone as an answer to a question. Its not only childish, its really quite silly. You are, by all definitions, a troglodyte. If you think of those ignorant \"\"republican christians\"\", thats how you are acting now. No country in the past has ever sold and bought there own debt at the same time I can promise you I worked in finance, for a large highly rated company, then got rich building a business. I know this hurts, but honestly, when you are wrong, just admit it and move on. Ignorance is just so sad to display and probably keeps you held back in life anyways. Im off to bed though I am sure you'll declare yourself victor of not naming a single country that bought and sold its own debt in history. But, maybe its ANY victory in your head you need right now. Who knows. ------------------------------------------- Update 1 * lol I see you changed your answer, let me do the same. The fact that the \"\"bank of england\"\" in 1694 is the model of \"\"modern\"\" central banks STILL doesn't show that they BOUGHT THERE OWN DEBT. Do you still not understand this yet? Modern central banking has NOTHING TO DO with buying your own debt. You really are clueless as to how \"\"economics\"\" works aren't you? ------------------------------------------- Update 2 * I think you keep changing them, because for some reason you just won't admit you have no understanding of modern/classical banking. Once again: >In order to induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank-notes.[12] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy. This statement still DOES NOT show that the government here simultaniously purchased its own bonds it issued. It issued debt, yes, no one is debating this. The bank, for all purposes, acted as the Treasury for England. But honestly, you are a fucking piece of work. I have watched you lie, change your answers, and pretty much do every childish thing in the book to try to win an arguement on Reddit. You are a little person, honestly. I know not of what world you live in, but it isn't this one. Seriously, get better, the world is alot more fun when you don't suck so bad at it.\""
},
{
"docid": "87032",
"title": "",
"text": "In a process called collateralization, your mortgage is combined with others to form a security that other can invest in. When done right, this process provides liquidity, more money to be lent for more loans. When done wrong, bad things happen. My mortgage happens to be held by the issuing bank. Yours was sold into such a pool of mortgages. One effect of this is the reselling of the servicing of the loan. I've had other mortgages that were sold every year, but I never paid ahead. With this bank, I'm on my fifth refinance, but the bank keeps the loan in house no matter what. I don't know if there's any correlation, it depends on the originating bank, in my opinion."
},
{
"docid": "417455",
"title": "",
"text": "Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA."
},
{
"docid": "578954",
"title": "",
"text": "All that's needed to deposit into your account are two things Bank identifier is could be SWIFT code, IBAN, or similar routing number. an ABA routing number a similar idendifier used by US banks. It's a scam. A variant scam deposits too much money in your account and then requests you repay the excess before canceling the deposit. If a stranger deposits money and then asks you to repay some. Do not do so. contact your bank instead."
},
{
"docid": "235271",
"title": "",
"text": "\"For 3X, it's about 114, and for 4X, 144, which naturally, is twice 72. These are close, back of napkin, results. With smart phone apps offering scientific calculators, you should get comfortable just taking the nth root of a number for a more precise answer. Update in response to Brick's comment. The rule of 72 says that (n)(y)=72 to double your money. It answers both questions, how much time do I need, given a rate, and how much return do I need, given a time? Logic tells me that if 72 is the number to double, 144 is the 4X. But I'm a math guy, and my logic might not be logical to OP. So - Let's take the 20th root of 4. This is the key to use. 4, (hit key) 20, equals. The result is 1.07177 or 7.177%. And this is the precise rate you'd need to quadruple your money in 20 years) Now (n)(y)= 20* 7.177 = 143.55 which rounds to 144. \"\"Rule of 144\"\" to quadruple your money. This now answers OP's question, \"\"How to derive a Rule of X\"\" for a return other than doubling. One more example? I want 10X my money. Of course I need the initial guess to enter one calculation. People like 8%, in general. It's a bit below the 10% long term S&P return, and a good round number. The Rule of 72 says 9 years to double, so, 18 years is 4X, and 36 years is 8X. For my initial calculation, I'll use 40 years. The 40th root of 10. I get 5.925% (Again the precise rate that gives 10 fold over 40 years) and multiplying this by 40, I get a \"\"Rule of 237\"\" which I'm tempted to round to 240. At 6%, 237/6= 39.5 yrs, 1.06^39.5 = 9.99 At 6%, 240/6= 40.0 yrs, 1.06^40.0 = 10.29 You can see that you lose some accuracy for the sake of a number that's easier to remember, and manipulate. 72 to double is pretty darn accurate, so I'll stick with \"\"Rule of 237\"\" to get 10X my money. To close, the purpose of these rules is to create the tool that lets you perform some otherwise tough calculations away from any electronic device. Of course I know how to use logs, and in real life I'm paid to explain them to students who are typically glad when that chapter is over. I've shown above how the \"\"Rule of X\"\" can be formulated with a power/root key, which, for most people, is simpler. Ironically, log calculations as @jkuz offered, force a continuous compounding which may not be desired at all. It would give a result of 230 for my 10X return example, and the following (using the first equation he offered) - At 6%, 230/6= 38.3 yrs, 1.06^38.3 = 9.31 which is further away from the desired 10X than my 237 or rounded 240.\""
},
{
"docid": "499154",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price. However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock. That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock. If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, \"\"Friends and Family\"\" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its lead managers, fixes a price (\"\"fixed price method\"\"), or the price can be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data compiled by the bookrunner (\"\"book building\"\"). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have been underpriced. The effect of \"\"initial underpricing\"\" an IPO is to generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO \"\"mania\"\" of the late 90's internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased 1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30 million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (\"\"syndicate\"\") arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that \"\"theglobe.com\"\" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially.\""
},
{
"docid": "324817",
"title": "",
"text": "When investigating transferring funds from the UK to Australia, I found the exchange rate offered by by banks for swift / Telegraphic transfers to be far below companies which specialise in international transfers. Not applicable to you unfortunately, but I used http://www.ozforex.com.au/ and got a conversion rate which ended up netting me $100's of dollars compared with my banks, thanks to a better rate and no fee."
},
{
"docid": "132167",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This is not a problem. SWIFT does not need the Beneficiary Account Currency. The settlement account [or the Instruction amount] is of interest to the Banks. As I understand your agreement with client is they pay you \"\"X\"\" EUR. That is what would be specified on the SWIFT along with your details as beneficiary [Account Number etc]. Once the funds are received by your bank in Turkey, they will get EUR. When they apply these funds to your account in USD, they will convert using the standard rates. Unless you are a large customer and have special instructions [like do not credit if funds are received in NON-USD or give me a special rate or Call me and ask me what I want to do etc]. It typically takes 3-5 days for an international wire depending on the countries and currencies involved. Wait for few more days and then if not received, you have to ask your Client to mention to his Bank that Beneficiary is claiming non-receipt of funds. The Bank that initiated the transfer can track the wire not the your bank which is supposed to receive the funds.\""
},
{
"docid": "43217",
"title": "",
"text": "There's no requirement of US citizenship to open a bank account in the US. Any person, citizen or not, can do that. I don't know where this assumption of yours come from, but it is false. So the easiest solution is to open a bank account for your nephew next time he visits the US and get him an ATM card from that account. You can then deposit money to that account as much as you want (beware of the gift tax consequences). If he doesn't want to travel to the US and cannot open a US bank account remotely from Russia (which is probably the case), then follow the @BrenBarn's suggestion: have him open a bank account in Russia and just wire money there. Having a foreigner tapping freely into your own personal bank account may cause legal issues both with regards to gift tax and money laundering provisions that require you to certify that the money on the account is yours only. Also, check if there's an issue for a Russian resident to have control over foreign accounts (there's definitely such an issue for a US resident, Russians are generally not far behind when it comes to government oppression)."
},
{
"docid": "377357",
"title": "",
"text": "\"UPDATE: Unfortunately Citibank have removed the \"\"standard\"\" account option and you have to choose the \"\"plus\"\" account, which requires a minimum monthly deposit of 1800 sterling and two direct debits. Absolutely there is. I would highly recommend Citibank's Plus Current Account. It's a completely free bank account available to all UK residents. http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/bankingproducts/currentaccounts/sterling/plus/index.htm There are no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements to maintain. Almost nobody in the UK has heard of it and I don't know why because it's extremely useful for anyone who travels or deals in foreign currency regularly. In one online application you can open a Sterling Current Account and Deposit Accounts in 10 other foreign currencies (When I opened mine around 3 years ago you could only open up to 7 (!) accounts at any one time). Citibank provide a Visa card, which you can link to any of your multi currency accounts via a phone call to their hotline (unfortunately not online, which frequently annoys me - but I guess you can't have everything). For USD and EUR you can use it as a Visa debit for USD/EUR purchases, for all other currencies you can't make debit card transactions but you can make ATM withdrawals without incurring an FX conversion. Best of all for your case, a free USD cheque book is also available: http://www.citibank.co.uk/personal/banking/international/eurocurrent.htm You can fund the account in sterling and exchange to USD through online banking. The rates are not as good as you would get through an FX broker like xe.com but they're not terrible either. You can also fund the account by USD wire transfer, which is free to deposit at Citibank - but the bank you issue the payment from will likely charge a SWIFT fee so this might not be worth it unless the amount is large enough to justify the fee. If by any chance you have a Citibank account in the US, you can also make free USD transfers in/out of this account - subject to a daily limit.\""
},
{
"docid": "293122",
"title": "",
"text": "\"First, there are not necessarily two accounts involved. Usually the receiving party can take the check to the bank on which it is drawn and receive cash. In this case, there is only one bank, it can look to see that the account on which the check is drawn has sufficient funds, and make an (essentially irrevocable) decision to pay the bearer. (Essentially irrevocable precisely because the bearer did not necessarily have to present account information.) The more usual case is that the receiving party deposits the check into an account at their own bank. The receiving party's bank then (directly or indirectly - in the US via the Federal Reserve) presents the check to the paying party's bank. At that point if the there are insufficient funds, the check \"\"bounces\"\" and the receiving party's account will be debited. The receiving party's bank knows that account number because, in this case, the receiving party is a customer of the bank. This is why funds from check deposits are typically not available for immediate withdrawal.\""
},
{
"docid": "593694",
"title": "",
"text": "\"1. What forms do I need to file to receive money from Europe None. Your client can pay you via wire transfer. They need to know your name, address, account number, and the name of your bank, its SWIFT number and its associated address. The addresses and names are required to make sure there are no typos in the numbers. 2. What forms do I need to file to pay people in Latin America (or any country outside the US) None. 1099s only need to be filled out when the contractor has a US tax ID. Make sure they are contractors. If they work for you for more than 2 years, that can create a problem unless they incorporate because they might look like \"\"employees\"\" to the IRS in which case you need to be reporting their identitites to the IRS via a W-8BEN form. Generally speaking any foreign contractor you have for more than 2 years should incorporate in their own country and you bill that corporation to prevent employee status from occurring. 3. Can I deduct payments I made to contractors from other countries as company expense Of course.\""
},
{
"docid": "473605",
"title": "",
"text": "I'd certainly take a look at companies like UK Forex for transferring funds internationally. Even if you get free wire transfers, the currency rates banks offer can be bad. My experience was transferring from NatWest to an Australian bank - saved my self hundreds of pounds by not using their swift service."
},
{
"docid": "271596",
"title": "",
"text": "The SWIFT format has multiple place holders. The Beneficiary Bank and Account can be specified using Local Sort Codes [ABA number in this example]. However you would still need to specify the Correspondent Bank and its BIC."
}
] |
6647 | What is meant by “priced in”? | [
{
"docid": "69790",
"title": "",
"text": "Anyone who wants to can use any method they want. Ultimately, the price of the stock will settle on the valuation that people tend to agree on. If you think the priced in numbers are too low, buy the stock as that would mean that its price will go up as the future earnings materialize. If you think it's too high, short the stock, as its price will go down as future earnings fail to materialize. The current price represents the price at which just as much pressure pushes the price up as down. That means people agree it's reasonably approximating the expected future value. Imagine if I needed money now and sold at auction whatever salary I make in 2019. How much will I make in 2019? I might be disabled. I might be a high earner. Who knows? But if I auction off those earnings, whatever price it sells for represents everyone's best estimate of that value. But each participant in the auction can estimate that value however they want. If you want to know what something is worth, you see what you can sell it for."
}
] | [
{
"docid": "381384",
"title": "",
"text": "He literally wrote a 1500 handbook on trusts and was a trust counsel at a huge bank for a long time so I definitely don't doubt his words. In one month I've learned what feels like an absolutely insane and mind blowing amount. I'll ask him after next class though to clarify what he meant. But he was also for sure talking about commercial purposes like mutual funds and stuff too. Edit: Im only posting here because a lot of stuff he says goes over my head as I am still a student and learning about trusts lol"
},
{
"docid": "45853",
"title": "",
"text": "I think what you meant to say instead of morons is 'young people who drive mass market consumer trends'. Apple, Facebook, Beats- these companies didn't climb to the top of the heap by winning the affectations of tech-geeks, but I suppose looking at demographics and the market would be more appropriate for a subreddit like /r/business, but seeing as how we're in /r/mypersonalopinion I guess I'm the odd one out."
},
{
"docid": "136800",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Then can you elaborate on what you meant by \"\"at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government\"\"? I would normally *agree* with that statement, but your use of it as a point of concern in your previous post appears to contradict what you just said.\""
},
{
"docid": "54945",
"title": "",
"text": "How can people afford 10% mortgage? Part of the history of housing prices was the non-bubble component of the bubble. To be clear, there was a housing bubble and crash. Let me offer some simple math to illustrate my point - This is what happened on the way down. A middle class earner, $60K/yr couple, using 25% of their income, the normal percent for a qualified mortgage, was able to afford $142K for the mortgage payment. At 10% fixed rate. This meant that after down payment, they were buying a house at $175K or so, which was above median home pricing. Years later, obviously, this wasn't a step function, with a rate of 4%, and ignoring any potential rise of income, as in real term, income was pretty stagnant, the same $1250/mo could pay for a $260K mortgage. If you want to say that taxes and insurance would push that down a bit, sure, drop the loan to $240K, and the house price is $300K. My thesis ('my belief' or 'proposal', I haven't written a scholarly paper, yet) is that the relationship between median home price and median income is easily calculated based on current 30 year fixed rate loans. For all the talk of housing prices, this is the long term number. Housing cannot exceed income inflation long term as it would creep up as a percent of income and slow demand. I'm not talking McMansion here, only the median. By definition, the median house targets the median earners, the middle class. The price increase I illustrate was just over 70%. See the famous Shiller chart - The index move from 110 to 199 is an 81% rise. I maintain, 70 of that 81 can be accounted for by my math. Late 80's, 1987 to be exact, my wife got a mortgage for 9%, and we thought that was ok, as I had paid over 13% just 3 years earlier."
},
{
"docid": "253563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "329923",
"title": "",
"text": "What I meant by leverage was not borrowing money in order to buy more. What I am getting at is the purchasing power your dollar has in relation to the number of dollars you have (which may mean using leverage, but not per se)."
},
{
"docid": "120677",
"title": "",
"text": "I think we are arguing the same side of the coin here from different perspectives. Let me re-phrase what I'm saying here: I'm arguing that wages should be higher; that business takes advantage of the social safety net to keep wages low, pushing the balance of what they should be paying off to the taxpayer. I'm not arguing to get rid of the social safety net. It's there for two reasons: First, people who have no income (as per your argument). Second, people who have *insufficient* income. My argument is meant to address the latter."
},
{
"docid": "213455",
"title": "",
"text": "It was a tough call. Here's what I think happened... They needed to use that 2.5 Ghz spectrum for something or risk losing it (FCC mandates on the purchase of that spectrum). LTE was nowhere near ready for deployment, so they had to go with WiMax. It was a good technology, ready to go at the right time, and far cheaper to deploy than LTE but the spectrum wasn't ideal for all environments. They always planned on switching from WiMax to LTE at some point. Unfortunately, the infighting with Clearwire delayed the rollout. WiMax didn't come to market soon enough and not enough people bought into it. Sprint saw this outcome as a possibility which is why the spun off their WiMax assets into Clearwire instead of proceeding with their original Xohm service. They wanted to insulate Sprint which also meant that Clearwire could become a toxic asset. Clearwire probably wasn't very happy with that part of the plan. Cue infighting and rollout delay. Since WiMax launched over a year late and the competition jumped forward, the WiMax rollout was cut short. Verizon pushed up their LTE rollout far earlier than planned (which caused constant Verizon data network outages last year). AT&T secured dominance with the iPhone and their GSM network allowed them to have higher data speeds, so they weren't worried about speeding up their LTE rollout. T-mo's parent company wanted out of the US market but still had high speed GSM and low prices. Sprint had to move forward with LTE or eat everyone else's dust. That's why you never got it. To top that off, they had to reband their 800 mhz spectrum, which meant killing the ability for them to use it for a few years. They also needed to completely rebuild their public image (which was shit thanks to Hesse's predecessor, Gary Forsee and his crew... all of which got shit-canned when Hesse took charge). They also had to deal with a few somewhat bad calls like the Nextel purchase (orchestrated by Forsee and his crew). The good news is that they snagged that 800 mhz spectrum from the Nextel deal which was fairly important. Here's the good news. Sprint's network overhaul is going to be awesome. The 2.5 Ghz spectrum is excellent for data speeds and high traffic. Densely populated areas will see some AMAZING speeds. Where the 2.5 Ghz spectrum falls off, the 1900 mhz will pick up. Where 1900 mhz falls off, the 800 mhz will pick up. Everything will deliver a nice, smooth, and fast experience. You'll start enjoying these improvements within 6 months. I'm pretty hopeful that Softbank will bring back removable SIMs and worldphones for interop between the US and Japanese networks."
},
{
"docid": "268107",
"title": "",
"text": "Yeah, you can presume anything you want. I'm not going to spend the rest of the night refuting a wall of words that will only generate another wall of words that I will then have to spend the rest of the night refuting. So by sheer might of bullshit, you win. You are right about one thing though, Somalia is an example of a failed government. You seem to want our government to fail as well. What I meant by saying that Somalia is a government free utopia is that they do not collect taxes, they do not regulate their businesses, and they have no influence on the lives of their citizens, which as far as I can tell is exactly what you are advocating for the US. Do you know what to call it when people structure their interactions in order to cooperate? The word is Government."
},
{
"docid": "391988",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I just edited an employment agreement last week that had a fairly standard noncompete for the industry (\"\"You won't go to work for my clients\"\") , but the last sentence was \"\"You will not work as a contractor or consultant within 150 miles for 18 months.\"\" WTF. Granting the employer the benefit of the doubt, it was intended to mean \"\"for any of my clients\"\" but that's not what it said, and as written it basically meant if I leave this job I can't work for 18 months.\""
},
{
"docid": "187806",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you trolling right now? If you knew what you were doing when you made that bet, you might consider reinvesting that money. 24yr olds don't buy first-time houses anymore. Houses today are meant for existing landowners and wealthy foreign investors willing to pay cash."
},
{
"docid": "322033",
"title": "",
"text": "This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%."
},
{
"docid": "73788",
"title": "",
"text": "oh wow, nice to hear about your friend. and I guess I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was as I'm an international student, USA will allow me to work here for one year after I get my degree and then they'll send me back to my country. Anyway, I'll definitely take your advice into consideration."
},
{
"docid": "141201",
"title": "",
"text": ">You seem to have missed half the plan. My suggestion to not charge back hours is meant to work with the idea of giving each department a budget in terms of hours. And what do you do with the department that uses up its budgeted hours by say... July or August? Do they get to simply ignore that they have gone over budget? (In which case, what use is the budget.) Ooops (guess you missed that little complication)."
},
{
"docid": "577008",
"title": "",
"text": "I'm sorry I guess what i meant to say was, what's the downside here? Why isn't everyone doing this, what am i missing? Someone clarified that i'm completely exposed to FX risk if I bring it back. What if I am IN australia, how would I do this, short USD's?"
},
{
"docid": "385669",
"title": "",
"text": "\"It can mean either. When A owes B money, then A is in debit with B and B is in credit with A. What the (Credit) means in this case depends on whether it is meant from the perspective of the utilities company or meant from the perspective of the customer. When the UI is user-friendly, it should describe the situation from the customer perspective which would mean you have credit with the company, but in that case the button \"\"Pay now\"\" would be really confusing (should be something like \"\"Request refund now\"\"). A case of bad UI design. You should use the provided \"\"contact us\"\" link to ask a customer representative for a clarification.\""
},
{
"docid": "553357",
"title": "",
"text": ">do you feel the same about the EPA under Scott Pruitt? What does how I *feel* about the FCC or EPA matter? This article is mainly criticizing having companies in an advisory comity meant to get advice from companies. No feelings are involved to know this is garbage, although feelings may be blocking you from seeing it."
},
{
"docid": "163709",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I would say his delivery could use a little better tempo and charisma, but the content and references he included were just right for his audience. I just watched that video because I wasn't sure if \"\"applause break\"\" meant he had to stop for applause or there was a break in the applause. I see that you meant he had to stop because they were applauding what he said. The applause was more for the republican and american part than the gay part, but you're right. There was applause directly associated with his statement of being proud to be gay. I have to think that his alignment with Trump is based on small government (deregulation and lower taxes) and frustration with the status quo. They are very strange bedfellows. Aside from deregulation and lower taxes, I wouldn't think that Thiel has much in common with the RNC. An example from the video is where he asks \"\"Who cares?\"\" about the issue of transgender bathrooms. The crowd cheered at that. I don't know who gets worked up more about the issue, the left or the right, but I know they both certainly do. Hearing Thiel's thoughts today would be very interesting. I believe he has acknowledged that Trump could end in some sort of disaster. I respect Thiel's abilities, the amount of thought he has put into various topics, and his effectiveness very much. He's one of the few Trump supporters that I can't immediately write off as uninformed or biased in an egregious way. On the other hand, its hard to see how a man as intelligent as he is could respect a ridiculous carnival barker like Trump.\""
},
{
"docid": "79760",
"title": "",
"text": "It's not taxpayer money. It's from the ill-gained profits of Ticketmaster. The legal expenses will come from Ticketmaster as part of the settlement. Each plaintiff gets $1.50 per ticket bought up to 17, they are not asked to pay for the attorneys. If Ticketmaster chooses to raise prices they will lose sales and hopefully another company will find a way to compete with them and cut into their market share. Again the individual class member (anyone who used Ticketmaster the last few years) did no work aside from signing their name to the agreement and now want to bitch about getting a free coupon. If you think you could have won a million dollar judgment for being overcharged by a few dollars you are simply delusional. The legal system is not meant to reward people for being screwed over but to restore people to their rightful position and to punish wrongdoers."
}
] |
6647 | What is meant by “priced in”? | [
{
"docid": "428017",
"title": "",
"text": "\"I think the first misconception to clear up is that you are implying the price of a stock is set by a specific person. It is not. The price of a stock is equal to the value that someone most recently traded at. If Apple last traded at $100/share, then Apple shares are worth $100. If good news about Apple hits the market and people holding the shares ask for more money, and the most recent trade becomes $105, then that is now what Apple shares are worth. Remember that generally speaking, the company itself does not sell you its shares - instead, some other investor sells you shares they already own. When a company sells you shares, it is called a 'public offering'. To get to your actual question, saying something is 'priced in' implies that the 'market' (that is, investors who are buying and selling shares in the company) has already considered the impacts of that something. For example, if you open up your newspaper and read an article about IBM inventing a new type of computer chip, you might want to invest in IBM. But, the rest of the market has also heard the news. So everyone else has already traded IBM assuming that this new chip would be made. That means when you buy, even if sales later go up because of the new chip, those sales were already considered by the person who chose the price to sell you the shares at. One principle of the stock market (not agreed to by all) is called market efficiency. Generally, if there were perfect market efficiency, then every piece of public information about a company would be perfectly integrated into its stock price. In such a scenario, the only way to get real value when buying a company would be to have secret information of some sort. It would mean that everyone's collective best-guess about what will happen to the company has been \"\"priced-in\"\" to the most recent share trade.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "357719",
"title": "",
"text": "Thank you for the input. I was more interested in a MBA so I was wondering how it would fair in the finance world? Also I was wondering what you meant by it has little practical application in business but it is the best major to acquire well rounded skills in that area? Do you mean it's good but at the same time it's not?"
},
{
"docid": "232059",
"title": "",
"text": "I wasn't clear, I meant misleading the public in the goal of supporting their own ends which will then work to the benefit of the politicians. Frankly, I know politicians are lying crooks. I don't respect what they do or the reasons they do it."
},
{
"docid": "26449",
"title": "",
"text": "\"> Would they go up at all? I assume, based on the rest of your post, that this is in reference to new tenants? > If the minimum wage goes up some workers might choose to move out from living with relatives or roommates so there would be some increase in demand but we wouldn't be \"\"overflowing with potential tennants\"\" I was referring to the areas where people who are currently making $15/hr live. People can always live in cheaper areas, but the neighborhood generally reflects that, so people would rather live in the nicer places with less crime and better roads. That you assume people will have relatives that they can live with tells me something. > and if rents started going up these new entrants to the housing market would likely fallback on their original housing setup with would moderate the impact. Looks like you're starting to get it. > As far as gas goes, while I don't have specific numbers in front of me, I think it's a reasonable assumption that US labor costs are a relatively small percentage of what you pay at the pump so even if those costs went up you wouldn't expect prices to surge. Oh, sorry, I thought you meant gas for the stoves and heat. You mean gasoline (maybe the brits have it right by calling it petrol). That will increase as the value of our dollar decreases in relation to the rest of the world, due to the fact that we don't really make anything anymore.\""
},
{
"docid": "110966",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Nobody has mentioned the futures market yet. Although the stock market closes at 4pm, the futures market continues trading 24 hours a day and 5.5 days a week. Amongst the products that trade in the future market are stock index futures. That includes the Dow Jones, the S&P 500. These are weighted averages of stocks and their sectors. You would think that the price of the underlying stock dictates the price of the average, but in this day and age, the derivative actually changes the value of the underlying stock due to a very complex combination of hedging practices. (this isn't meant to be vague and mysterious, it is \"\"delta hedging\"\") So normal market fluctuations coupled with macroeconomic events affect the futures market, which can ripple down to individual stocks. Very popular stocks with large market caps will most certainly be affected by futures market trading. But it is also worth mentioning that futures can function completely independently of a \"\"spot\"\" price. This is where things start to get complicated and long winded. The futures market factor is worth mentioning because it extends even outside of the aftermarket and pre-market hours of stock trading.\""
},
{
"docid": "219940",
"title": "",
"text": "All this speculation and no one really has the right idea what's going on. It has almost nothing to do with VAT and nothing to do compliance. [It has everything to do with a very a chronically weak Euro.](https://www.google.com/finance?client=safari&rls=en&q=eur&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we) Apps in the App Store are tied to tiers. My app sells at tier 10. For USD, this means I sell my app for $10 and make $7 after their cut. Tier 10 used to translate to 7,99€. Now it's 8,99€. This means before the hike I, as an American, would get 4,79€ or $6.19 after the exchange. This wasn't a problem back when the app store opened. The economy was relatively strong and the Euro stood around 1.5 to one American dollar. This means in 2008 I'd get about the same $7 after the conversion. With the Euro crisis, the tiers remained the same which meant each European sale only netted around $5.75, a $1.25 discount for each European. The Euro conversion was a long standing issue and the price hike restores the exchange back to the $7 dollars it used to be."
},
{
"docid": "88169",
"title": "",
"text": "How is that the wrong use of marginal? Its marginal in that it is small. Not marginal in the economic sense, which is what I think you think I meant. You operating on the premise that loans for advanced education is the right model. I disagree wholeheartedly. Make public university free and crank up the standards. Not that hard."
},
{
"docid": "148440",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The ex indicator is meant to be a help for market participants. On the ex-day orders will go into a different order book, the ex order book, which at the start of the ex day will be totally empty, i.e. no orders from the non-ex day book have been copied over. Why does this help? Well imagine you had a long-standing buy order in the book, well below the current price, and now the share price halves due to a 2-for-1 split, would you want to see your order executed? If so, your order should have gone into the ex-book which is only active on the ex-day (and orders in the ex book are usually copied over to the normal book on the day after the ex-day but this is exchange-specific). Think of it as an additional safety net to tell the exchange: \"\"I know what I'm doing: I want to buy this stock totally overpriced after the 2-for-1 split\"\". Now some exchanges and/or some securities (mostly derivatives) linked with the security in question don't have this notion of ex or the ex-book, and they will tell you by \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" or \"\"the ex indicator is missing\"\". In your case (SNE) it is a sponsored ADR, the ex-date was Mar 28 2016, one day before the ex date of the Japanese original. According to my understanding of NYSE rules, there is no specific rule for or against omitting the ex-indicator. It seems to be a decision on a case by case basis. Looking through the dividends of other Japanese ADRs I drew the conclusion none of them have an ex-book and so all of them are announced as: \"\"Will not be quoted ex by the exchange\"\". Again, this is based on my observations.\""
},
{
"docid": "381384",
"title": "",
"text": "He literally wrote a 1500 handbook on trusts and was a trust counsel at a huge bank for a long time so I definitely don't doubt his words. In one month I've learned what feels like an absolutely insane and mind blowing amount. I'll ask him after next class though to clarify what he meant. But he was also for sure talking about commercial purposes like mutual funds and stuff too. Edit: Im only posting here because a lot of stuff he says goes over my head as I am still a student and learning about trusts lol"
},
{
"docid": "78525",
"title": "",
"text": "Siri suffers from it working too well, I think. Yes, speech to text and text to speech is a relatively solved problem. But. That's only half of what Siri is doing. When it translates your speech to text, it then transmits the text to servers that, in only seconds, parse the *meaning* of the text. That's a lot harder. I tell Siri to set trimmers or remind me of things at certain times, etc. the brilliance of Siri is it understands what I meant in addition to what I said."
},
{
"docid": "444581",
"title": "",
"text": "This. Best Buy doesn't sell cases of water...they are shrinkwrapped like this from the Coke distributor and meant to go in coolers by the registers and such. There was no price gouging here...hell, the price of the products might not even be set by Best Buy (they likely get a cut from Coca cola when they are actually sold). But...they shouldn't have ended up on the floor like this in the first place, it just looks bad."
},
{
"docid": "87379",
"title": "",
"text": "\"@farnsy has provided a good answer. I'm only addressing my comment about the data quality. The portfolio optimization technique you employed is very sensitive to the inputs. In particular, it relies entirely on the mean and (co)variance assumptions (i.e. the first two moments) and the results could change drastically with very small amount of change in the inputs. To see that, you can make up some inputs for the solver you have, and try adjusting the inputs a little bit and see the results. Therefore if you decide to take this approach, data quality is very crucial. EDIT: What I meant by \"\"data quality\"\" I have no experience with this website but this should be easy to spot check. The answer is usually \"\"yes\"\" for liquid assets. Illiquid assets can often be priced at a level with no volume, and the bid-ask spread could be huge. Should I close my eyes on the fact that these cryptocurencies aren't perfectly priced in my currency and use another one (such as the dollar) You seem to have concern about data quality in at least the price quoted in your currency and are thinking about using data quoted in USD, but would it be any better? The law of one price tells us that there shouldn't be any discrepancy between prices in different currencies (otherwise there would be arbitrage). In addition, (when compared to traditional assets) cryptocurrency price data has a shorter data history, and with lower liquidity in the market. The short history means you have less data to infer the characteristics of the price behavior. Low liquidity means the volatility may well be underestimated. So we have an input-sensitive technique combined with not-so-perfect data. I wouldn't allocate my money solely based on the result of this exercise. EDIT: I have quite some reservation about doing portfolio optimization for cryptocurrency. Personally I'm not a fan of the technique as is. The optimization has an underlying assumption that returns follow a certain distribution, and correlation is fixed. I don't know if you can make such assumption for cryptocurrencies. From what I read about BTC for example, it seems to have a high risk exposure concerning Chinese monetary policy. For that kind of assets perhaps a fundamental analysis approach is a better one. Also if you would like to learn more about portfolio optimization, try quant.SE\""
},
{
"docid": "155733",
"title": "",
"text": "\"All of this was commonly discussed back then, it was in no way his singular vision. And most aren't even really realized as he describes them. \"\"Private websites\"\" for families are not common at all. His idea of advertisement links in television aren't just handles of their twitter, he meant real links. Online discussion boards centered on location or not (two items really?) were already well happening by then. What a fluff article.\""
},
{
"docid": "364613",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Didn't OP say that he meant 'credibility' as \"\"your past work that determines your status\"\"? Which is the same as what you said. Also, Yes, the farmer can promise a million bushels of apples for a million deer. This is what Industries do,don't they?\""
},
{
"docid": "73788",
"title": "",
"text": "oh wow, nice to hear about your friend. and I guess I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was as I'm an international student, USA will allow me to work here for one year after I get my degree and then they'll send me back to my country. Anyway, I'll definitely take your advice into consideration."
},
{
"docid": "301875",
"title": "",
"text": "Oh, well that's much more reasonable than what I thought you meant (that Perry was not retarded). I would encourage you to look into Ron Paul. I have never supported a politician in my entire life. He is the first."
},
{
"docid": "93821",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the per capita increase that they are anticipating for full-time employees? This is not meant to be a political question, I'm just curious what the actual number is :P >The test entails increasing the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week. Under the new health care act, companies will be required to provide health care to full-time employees by 2014. That would significantly boost labor costs for businesses."
},
{
"docid": "127958",
"title": "",
"text": "I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need."
},
{
"docid": "214000",
"title": "",
"text": "Their meat costs less than farm meat and as you said, it is a 10 000 year process whereby we selected aimals that fit our idea of good meat, that people want to buy. all the sellers of bad quality meat meant, they paid money fot livestock that wasn't worth effort. so they were punished by the market. nd tis kind of buying and selling of meat with the ripple effect took place in separate locations around the world, where then better quality animals, priced as they were could be sold overseas or down the river to farmers willing to pay a lot of money for this livestock. i wouldnt disregard this processas meaningless"
},
{
"docid": "187806",
"title": "",
"text": "Are you trolling right now? If you knew what you were doing when you made that bet, you might consider reinvesting that money. 24yr olds don't buy first-time houses anymore. Houses today are meant for existing landowners and wealthy foreign investors willing to pay cash."
}
] |
6647 | What is meant by “priced in”? | [
{
"docid": "462265",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Priced in just means that the speaker thinks the current price has already taken that factor into account. For example, the difference in price right before and right after a dividend is released often differ exactly by that dividend -- the fact that the dividend would function as a \"\"relate\"\" on the purchase price was priced into the earlier quote, and its absence for another year was priced into the later quote. The ten can be applied to any expected or likely event, if you really think the price reflects that opportunity of risk. It just means that this factor, in the speaker's opinion, doesn't create an opportunity one can take advantage of.\""
}
] | [
{
"docid": "253563",
"title": "",
"text": "\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\""
},
{
"docid": "322033",
"title": "",
"text": "This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%."
},
{
"docid": "528052",
"title": "",
"text": "\"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\""
},
{
"docid": "295785",
"title": "",
"text": "What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), inflation expectations don't go down unless real yields as measured by TIPs stay still."
},
{
"docid": "259245",
"title": "",
"text": "You say “there is no reason” as if the reasons they had for initially choosing uniform pricing and pay meant nothing. You sound just like those libertarians who want to get rid of all market regulations because free market is more competitive and healthier. You should NEVER ignore the initial reasons any law or decision is made. That is a recipe for repeating the issues we have already faced. Why go through the same struggle twice?"
},
{
"docid": "148440",
"title": "",
"text": "\"The ex indicator is meant to be a help for market participants. On the ex-day orders will go into a different order book, the ex order book, which at the start of the ex day will be totally empty, i.e. no orders from the non-ex day book have been copied over. Why does this help? Well imagine you had a long-standing buy order in the book, well below the current price, and now the share price halves due to a 2-for-1 split, would you want to see your order executed? If so, your order should have gone into the ex-book which is only active on the ex-day (and orders in the ex book are usually copied over to the normal book on the day after the ex-day but this is exchange-specific). Think of it as an additional safety net to tell the exchange: \"\"I know what I'm doing: I want to buy this stock totally overpriced after the 2-for-1 split\"\". Now some exchanges and/or some securities (mostly derivatives) linked with the security in question don't have this notion of ex or the ex-book, and they will tell you by \"\"will not be quoted ex\"\" or \"\"the ex indicator is missing\"\". In your case (SNE) it is a sponsored ADR, the ex-date was Mar 28 2016, one day before the ex date of the Japanese original. According to my understanding of NYSE rules, there is no specific rule for or against omitting the ex-indicator. It seems to be a decision on a case by case basis. Looking through the dividends of other Japanese ADRs I drew the conclusion none of them have an ex-book and so all of them are announced as: \"\"Will not be quoted ex by the exchange\"\". Again, this is based on my observations.\""
},
{
"docid": "496378",
"title": "",
"text": "Ad Hominem isn't meant to apply to every comment about the speaker, it's meant to apply to situations where someone argues 'he must be wrong because of who's speaking'. In this case, crazymunch is just raising the point that we should be aware that bezos has conflicting/contradictory statements, according to who he's talking to. You can't be both down on patents *and* vigorously defending your own dubious patent."
},
{
"docid": "285865",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That's not exactly what I meant, but it works I guess. I was more referring to that our \"\"liberal\"\" ideas will become common place and traditional. The next generational will have their own fresh ideas and become the new liberals. This is **very generally** speaking.\""
},
{
"docid": "582189",
"title": "",
"text": "There isn't a difference - he/she likely meant to say the difference between sales and profit. Sales, in this case, means the amount of money that a business receives from its customers. Profit would be what is left after deducting costs (wages, product, etc.) from sales. To put it another way: Sales - Costs = Profit"
},
{
"docid": "357719",
"title": "",
"text": "Thank you for the input. I was more interested in a MBA so I was wondering how it would fair in the finance world? Also I was wondering what you meant by it has little practical application in business but it is the best major to acquire well rounded skills in that area? Do you mean it's good but at the same time it's not?"
},
{
"docid": "93821",
"title": "",
"text": "What is the per capita increase that they are anticipating for full-time employees? This is not meant to be a political question, I'm just curious what the actual number is :P >The test entails increasing the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week. Under the new health care act, companies will be required to provide health care to full-time employees by 2014. That would significantly boost labor costs for businesses."
},
{
"docid": "575870",
"title": "",
"text": "\"This highly editorialized headline makes no sense and suggests that the OP did not read and/or understand the article at all. >*\"\"The decision is probably driven by Qatar’s worries over losing market share to emerging competitors like the United States, whose shale gas industry has been growing fast, and Australia. An increase in the emirate’s exports could discourage investment by would-be rivals.\"\"* How does anything in this piece suggest a quid pro quo deal when on the surface, the strategy is meant only to harm global LNG prices and therefore US producers?\""
},
{
"docid": "526062",
"title": "",
"text": "\"While I agree with you (I wouldn't buy Facebook above $15), hence my term \"\"suckers\"\" when referring to people who bought into Facebook's IPO - I still think there should be some kind of rule in place that an IPO has to reflect a companies actual value. The IPO price of $38 meant that Facebook's P/E ratio was 104x which is absurd for an IPO.\""
},
{
"docid": "76738",
"title": "",
"text": "From a wealth management perspective, almost every one of my clients that owns a business has it in some sort of trust. Mostly for estate planning purposes. So it wouldn't surprise me if that's what he was talking about. But I would straight up just ask to clarify. Can't hurt to ask, and I'd love to hear what he meant."
},
{
"docid": "539836",
"title": "",
"text": "Single payer health care, aka socialized, has been shown to be superior. If you haven't noticed we already do the free market thing. That is why insurers have been booting people with pre existing conditions and hospitals and pharma companies hugely jacking up the rates. Epi pens are up over 700% from a few years ago. Martin Shrekli bought rights to a life saving drug and jacked the prices astronomically. The free market works great for consumer products and services, but when it comes to services that are meant to benefit society, the free market does a horrendous job. Health care in other counties' goal is to provide adequate health care for the lowest cost. Here it is trying to charge people as much as they can get away with and marginalizing those that can't afford. And funny enough you are paying more for health care in your taxes than in any other country in ADDITION to your private insurance for lower quality care so the pharma execs can increase their share prices."
},
{
"docid": "73788",
"title": "",
"text": "oh wow, nice to hear about your friend. and I guess I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was as I'm an international student, USA will allow me to work here for one year after I get my degree and then they'll send me back to my country. Anyway, I'll definitely take your advice into consideration."
},
{
"docid": "528603",
"title": "",
"text": "\"That's not what he meant to say. He meant that beyond \"\"browsing internet\"\", you need to know math, how to write and compose long essays and reports, work ethics, business principles, and simple general knowledge... and many young millennials are terrible in math, can't write proper English, no work ethics, conviction, principal, or even aspiration to build career, let alone understand business and general knowledge. They can't even find Alaska in the map.\""
},
{
"docid": "30946",
"title": "",
"text": "\"he is saying that \"\"QE\"\" meaning \"\"quantitative easing\"\" meaning \"\"the theory that the government flooded the markets with money, artificially driving up the price of stocks\"\" meant that hedge funds, which HEDGE, and benefit from an up-and-down market, couldn't win in a market where it just kept going up. It's basically a conspiracy theory bears have been pushing for years \"\"QE artificially inflated the market, it's gonna crash!\"\"\""
},
{
"docid": "20943",
"title": "",
"text": "What is not permitted in Islam is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. Originally, usury meant interest of any kind. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors. But In case of financial markets, people borrow money to make money and both parties benefits, and no one is taking advantage of the other. I may be wrong in interpreting this way, God knows the best."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.