Datasets:

---

jasper-xian

/

tevatron_fiqa_qrel_test

like 0

[ { "docid": "104221", "title": "", "text": "I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with? If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return." } ]

[ { "docid": "544288", "title": "", "text": "But their strategy is not debt spending to increase demand. Every time we start getting anywhere near a balanced budget they cut taxes again so that they can continue blaming the deficit on pork barrel spending. Forcing ever more draconian budget cuts that will never ultimately balance the budget. It's called a [starve the beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) strategy. Deficit spending does drive demand short term. But as this debt rises so does the rent seeking cost of that debt. After some point this debt cost exceeds the benefits derived from the debt incurred in any given year. Just because you cab say the debt incurred this year exceeds the cost of the debt incurred this year does not mean that these benefits will remain positive overall as the debt remains on the books indefinitely, not just for the year they were incurred. This is not to claim that all debt is bad, but you can't make broad statements about the benefits of debt in general. Most such debt spending is a complete waste. Because your taxes are not defined by how much they take from your paycheck alone. When debt is used for consumption spending, rather than investment spending that increases productive capacity, this consumption leaves fewer goods and services remaining on the market for the rest of the consumers competing for it. Raising your cost of living. Your tax rate is not determined by how much money the government takes from you. It's determined by how much they spend. That is how much they are taking from the consumer market. Granted, given the [low wages relative to capital returns](http://www-tc.pbs.org/prod-media/newshour/photos/2012/12/06/Andrew_Smithers_chart_blog_main_horizontal.JPG), demand (consumption) is overly suppressed. Resulting in an [overproduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction) problems. Which makes debt spending look even more financially appealing, because it's not actually suppressing the already excessive demand constraints. But this is because you wages have been suppressed. So instead of paying taxes you are working for a lower income. In fact the loss of wages, relative to capital returns, i.e., your cost of living, actually well exceeds your tax cut. Your just paying those taxes through lower wages, or an increased cost of living, instead of taxes out of your paycheck. So your being conned out of that money while the people doing it are pretending to cut taxes. The same [applies to the rich (PDF)](https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/gsb/files/jmp_simcha-barkai.pdf) in a different way. There is a limit to how rich you can get from a population of poor people. When you cut wages too far below productive capacity to save cost it dries up demand. People can't afford as much of your product as you can produce. So they cut jobs, i., production, to match market demand, which drives demand even lower. Pushing inflation and the velocity of money to historic lows in spite of an increased money supply. This also makes it unprofitable to invest in new productive capacity when market demand is already saturated. Wages, relative to capital returns, must increase to fix it. But if you take it too far it drives inflation to unacceptable levels. But, at the present ratio, we are a long ways from that." }, { "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": "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": "394298", "title": "", "text": "This can mean a few things to me. Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month. (Highly discourage using them. A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do. Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account. But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt. You can't borrow your way out. You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY." }, { "docid": "35534", "title": "", "text": "\"Once upon a time (not all that long ago), British cheques used to say something like \"\"Pay to the order of ..,,,, or bearer the sum of ...,..\"\" (emphasis added) and could be cashed by anyone unless the cheque-writer drew two parallel lines in the upper left corner of the cheque. These lines converted the instrument into a crossed cheque which could only be deposited into a bank account of the payee; a bearer of the cheque could not walk into the bank and waltz out with the cash equivalent. Perhaps British banks no longer use this styling (Indian banks still do) but if that cheque for 60k is not a crossed cheque, it better be sent securely with lots of insurance. An uncrossed cheque is the same as cash since it can be cashed by anyone. That being said, I am with @mhoran_psprep in thinking that all this is just a scam with the OP (mug) being asked to send 3600 bucks to \"\"girlfriend\"\" (scammer) to cover the cost of sending the check with full insurance, and when the check arrives and is deposited by OP into his bank, it will turn out to be a dud, and \"\"girlfriend\"\" will be long gone. The description of how the girlfriend signed a contract for 90k and received 60k of this amount upfront, but in the form of a check payable to boyfriend (!) OP reeks of scam; is this scenario realistic? In the past, I have received offers (usually from Nigeria) from \"\"women\"\" wanting to be my girlfriend, and I am sure that such offers will continue to come in the future....\"" }, { "docid": "362721", "title": "", "text": "Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?" }, { "docid": "496370", "title": "", "text": "\"Yeah, I'll take the challenge...:) How trustworthy these are and what are their sources of income? These are in fact two separate questions, but the answers are related. How trustworthy? As trustworthy as they're clear about their own sources of income. If you cannot find any clue as to why, what for and how they're paying you - you probably should walk away. What's too good to be true usually is indeed too good to be true. For those of the sites that I know of their sources of income, it is usually advertisements and surveys. To get paid, you have to watch advertisements and/or answer surveys. I know of some sites who are legit, and pay people (not money, but gift cards, airline miles, etc) for participating in surveys. My own HMO (Kaiser in California) in fact pays (small amounts) to members who participate in enough surveys, so its legit. Are these sites worthwhile to consider for extra income? Not something you could live off, but definitely can get you enough gift cards for your weekly trip to Starbucks. What do I need to consider tax wise? Usually the amounts are very low, and are not paid in cash. While it is income, I doubt the IRS will chase you if you don't report the $20 Amazon gift card you got from there. It should, strictly speaking, be reported (probably as hobby income) on your tax return. Most people don't bother dealing with such small amounts though. In some cases (like the HMO I mentioned), its basically a rebate of the money paid (you pay your copays, deductibles etc. Since the surveys are only for members, you basically get your money back, not additional income). This is in fact similar to credit card rebates. Is there a best practice for handling the income? If we're talking about significant amounts (more than $20-30 a year), then you need to keep track of the income and related expenses, and report it as any other business income on your taxes, Schedule C. Is there a good test to determine what is and isn't a scam? As I said - if it looks too good to be true - it most likely is. If you're required to provide your personal/financial information without any explanation as to why, what it will be used for, and why and what for you're going to be paid - I'd walk away. Otherwise, you can also check Internet reviews, BBB ratings, FTC information and the relevant state agencies and consumer watchdogs (for example: http://www.scamadviser.com) whether they've heard of that particular site, and what is the information they have on it. A very good sign for a scam is contact information. Do they have a phone number to call to? Is it in your own country? If its not in your own country - definitely go away (for example the original link that was in the question pointed to a service whose phone number is in the UK, but listed address is in Los Angeles, CA. A clear sign of a scam). If they do have a phone number - try it, talk to them, call several times and see how many different people you're going to talk to. If its always the same person - run and hide. Do they have an address? If not - walk away. If they do - look it up. Is it a PMB/POB? A \"\"virtual\"\" office? Or do they have a proper office set up, which you can see on the map and in the listings as their office? And of course your guts. If your guts tell you its a scam - it very likely is.\"" }, { "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": "427522", "title": "", "text": "\"Having just gone through selling a car, I can tell you that CarMax will most likely not be the best solution. I recently sold my '09 Pontiac Vibe which had a KBB and Edmonds value (private party sale) of around $6k. Trade-in value was around $4,800. I took it to the local CarMax for a quote, and they came back with $3,500. Refinancing is tricky. Banks have a set limit on how old a car they will finance. Many won't even offer financing if the vehicle has over 100k miles. We looked at refinancing our other car, and even getting the APR down over a point we would only have saved $15/mo or so. Banks typically offer much higher interest rates for used non-dealership cars and refinancing than they do for new cars, or even used cars purchased from a dealership. Assuming you have 2-3 years left on your loan, I don't think that refinancing would save you enough to be worth considering. CarMax sells cars in 1 of 2 ways. They are also up front with you about the process. They do not reference KBB or Edmonds or any other valuation tool other than their own internal system. They either take the car, spruce it up a bit, then resell it on their lot, or they sell it at auction. If they determine your car will be sold at auction, then they will offer you a rock bottom price. The determining factors that come into play include age of the car, mileage, and of course overall condition. If you Mini is still in good shape and doesn't have a lot of miles, then they may try to resell it on their lot, for which they could offer you closer to personal-sale price than trade-in. How many 2007's are for sale in your area? How much are they selling for? I did sell them a truck back in 2005 and received $200 more than KBB valued it for, but it was in great shape, only a couple of years old, relatively low mileage, and it was in high demand. God bless the South and their love for trucks! I ended up selling my Pontiac to another local car dealership. They offered me $5,300 (after negotiating, leaving the dealership, then negotiating more over the phone). It took me a day and a half and really very little effort. I have several friends that have gone through the same thing with selling cars, and all have had similar luck going to other dealerships, where prices can be negotiated, rather than CarMax. CarMax has no incentive to \"\"settle\"\" or forgive your loan. If you really want to pay it off, save up what you believe the difference will be, then shop your car around the local dealerships and get prices for your Mini. Remember that dealers have to turn a profit, so be reasonable with your negotiation. If you can find comparable vehicles in your area listed for $X,000 then knock $1,500 off that price and tell the dealerships that's what you want.\"" }, { "docid": "339017", "title": "", "text": "\"Coming from someone who has worked a in the account servicing department of an actual bank in the US, other answers are right, this is probably a scam, the phone number on the letter is probably ringing to a fraudulent call center (these are very well managed and sound professional), and you must independently locate and dial the true contact number to US Bank. NOW. Tell them what happened. Reporting is critical. Securing your money is critical. Every piece of information you provided \"\"the bank\"\" when you called needs to be changed or worked around. Account numbers, passwords, usernames, card numbers get changed. Tax ID numbers get de-prioritized as an authentication mechanism even if the government won't change them. The true bank probably won't transfer you to the branch. If the front-line call center says they will, ask the person on the phone what the branch can do that they cannot. Information is your friend. They will probably transfer you to a special department that handles these reports. Apparently Union Bank's call center transfers you to the branch then has the branch make this transfer. Maybe their front-line call center team is empowered to handle it like I was. Either way, plug your phone in; if the call takes less than 5 minutes they didn't actually do everything. 5 to 8 minutes per department is more likely, plus hold time. There's a lot of forms they're filling out. What if that office is closed because of time differences? Go online and ask for an ATM limit increase. Start doing cash advances at local banks if your card allows it. Just get that money out of that account before it's in a fraudsters account. Keep receipts, even if the machine declines the transaction. Either way, get cash on hand while you wait for a new debit card and checks for the new account you're going to open. What if this was fraud, you draw your US Bank account down to zero $800 at a time, and you don't close it or change passwords? Is it over? No. Then your account WILL get closed, and you will owe EVERYTHING that the fraudsters rack up (these charges can put your account terrifyingly far in the negative) from this point forward. This is called \"\"participation in a scam\"\" in your depository agreement, because you fell victim to it, didn't report, and the info used was voluntarily given. You will also lose any of your money that they spend. What if US Bank really is closing your account? Then they owe you every penny you had in it. (Minus any fees allowed in the depository agreement). This closure can happen several days after the date on the warning, so being able to withdraw doesn't mean you're safe. Banks usually ship an official check shipped to the last known address they had for you. Why would a bank within the United States close my account when it's not below the minimum balance? Probably because your non-resident alien registration from when you were in school has expired and federal law prohibits them from doing business with you now. These need renewed at least every three years. Renewing federally is not enough; the bank must be aware of the updated expiration date. How do I find out why my account is being closed? You ask the real US Bank. They might find that it's not being closed. Good news! Follow the scam reporting procedure, open a new account (with US Bank if you want, or elsewhere) and close the old one. If it IS being closed by the bank, they'll tell you why, and they'll tell you what your next options are. Ask what can be done. Other commenters are right that bitcoin activity may have flagged it. That activity might actually be against your depository agreement. Or it set off a detection system. Or many other reasons. The bank who services your account is the only place that knows for sure. If I offer them $500 per year will they likely keep the account opened? Otherwise I got to go to singapore open another account Legitimate financial institutions in the United States don't work this way. If there is a legal problem with your tax status in the US, money to the bank won't solve it. Let's call the folks you've talked to \"\"FraudBank\"\" and the real USBank \"\"RealBank,\"\" because until RealBank confirms, we have no reason to believe that the letter is real. FraudBank will ask for money. Don't give it. Don't give them any further information. Gather up as much information from them as possible instead. Where to send it, for example. Then report that to RealBank. RealBank won't have a way to charge $500/year to you only. If they offer a type of account to everyone that costs $500, ask for the \"\"Truth in Savings Act disclosures.\"\" Banks are legally required to provide these upon request. Then read them. Don't put or keep your money anywhere you don't understand.\"" }, { "docid": "364567", "title": "", "text": "Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her." }, { "docid": "400947", "title": "", "text": "This sounds like a scam. Did they email you out of the blue to offer you this 'job', by any chance, and you'd never heard of them before? That's an incredibly large red flag in and of itself. While I don't know quite what the scam is likely to be, here's how I would suggest it might work: Other variants are possible - say using a cheque rather than PayPal, or having Person A be the scammer as well. But this being a legitimate transaction is very unlikely." }, { "docid": "91027", "title": "", "text": "Long term, student loan debt is a huge damper on the economy overall. When a generation is paying the equivalent of 50-100% of rent or a mortgage on debt, you can't get around it. At best, it will delay things like homeownership (which is what we're seeing), but at worst, it will be crippling for an entire generation of Americans (which we might also be seeing, but it still has to play out). I think the biggest problem with debt is how it changes your risk tolerance. Meaning, we Millennials are well-trained and well-positioned to be employees. Not inventors or entrepreneurs. As cheesy as it's sounds because of pandering politicians, small businesses are— or were— huge drivers of innovation, jobs and growth. Not the growth that only impacts the 1%, but the growth that boosts wages and creates good jobs for everyone. On one hand, it's an inefficiency, but a good inefficiency. Meaning, if you have 100 small business, they all need sales guys, accountants, payroll, stock guys, cashiers. They all use dozens and dozens of suppliers, and are more likely to use local, domestic labor. Consolidated industries and reliance more on larger businesses means those 100x accountants and sales guys are replaced by a fraction. Fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, smaller salary growth, less domestic labor used. This, to me, is the real danger in not only student loan debt, but even uncertain retirement conditions. Our money is paying debt and dumping into 401ks, not starting businesses and generating meaningful economic activity." }, { "docid": "565698", "title": "", "text": "It is possible to consolidate mortgages with Nationwide, in some circumstances. Quote from their website: It is possible to consolidate different mortgages and other debts such as personal loans and credit cards. However it does depend on your individual circumstances, including the exact type of loans you want to consolidate and whether you are still in a special deal period I, personally, would be amazed if you couldn't get them all in one mortgage without changing provider. But... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they forced you to have this one mortgage as a new mortgage, rather than adding balances to an existing one. My reasoning is as follows: Coming at it from a different angle: whatever there was that required your further borrowing to be in new mortgages, rather than added to your existing mortgage, will also preclude your multiple mortgages being added to one of your existing mortgages." }, { "docid": "246882", "title": "", "text": "I would say generally, the answer is No. There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay. This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture. The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed. Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests. Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it? This might mean taking several part time jobs. Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible. However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford. People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home. Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan. Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means. If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working. This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people. You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt. Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards. If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible. Which one gets paid first. Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation. They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over). There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters). People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first. Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc... Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors. They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt. It is there and real despite many people noticing it. There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank. This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life. I can tell you it is quite liberating." }, { "docid": "205715", "title": "", "text": "\"From the comments, it sounds like you have a technical background. So I'm going to suggest you think of this as a technical problem: it's an optimization problem, where the variable you're trying to optimize for is total interest paid over the lifetime of the loans. Step 1 is making sure you're using the credit available to you most efficiently. If there's room in the credit limit for card #1 to move more of your debt there, then definitely move your balances from the higher-interest cards. However, be careful; some cards will have different interest rates for balance transfers or cash advances. And definitely don't move any principal from Card #3 until the 0% interest rate expires. Pursuing a bank loan as part of step 1 is valid as well. You could start with the bank you use for your checking account today. Credit unions can be a good source of lower-interest loans as well. Ensure that you fully understand the terms and interest rates, particularly if they change. Just be careful about applying for them; too many rejections can affect your credit rating negatively. You also mention in the comments that you're paying \"\"her\"\" mortgage. I don't know how the ownership is set up there, but either refinancing or taking out a home equity loan can be a way to consolidate debt. The interest rate on a home loan will almost assuredly be less than on your higher rate cards, especially taking the tax deduction into account. Step 2 is paying down the debt efficiently. The rule here is simple: Pay the minimum payment on all cards except for the one with the highest interest rate; any money you have above the minimum payments should go into paying down the principal on that one. In your case, that's Card #2. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "330994", "title": "", "text": "\"Wot.com or Web of Trust is a website where people add reviews/complaints of websites for things such as child safety, hate propaganda, fraudulent claims, phishing scams, etc. Anyone can post a review, there's no standard or criteria for reviewers. Using WOT to prove a websites information is accurate would be like using a Yelp review as a source in an academic journal or in court. > what would constitute \"\"scientific methodology\"\" regarding political analysis? When researching for media bias, you'll need: A. Clearly defined terms B. Objective criteria for doing measurements C. Accounting for error/bias on the part of researchers D. Having experts in relevant fields peer-review and publicly scrutinize your research This isnt just about science, these are the foundations of any attempts at determining truthhood. You're trying to tell me what websites are biased and which are legit, you don't even understand how to go about determining what bias or truth is without basing it on someone else's unevidenced opinion. I understand that we might be able to intuitively recognize bias on the part of overtly right-wing (Brietbart) or left-wing (CNN) news sources, but websites like this can't call themselves fact-checkers when its based entirely on their own intuitive opinions. Sourcing blog posts and unsourced websites is the level of research you'd expect from a conspiracy theorist.\"" }, { "docid": "361698", "title": "", "text": "Short-term, getting a balance transfer will help. It'll reduce the interest you pay. You can also reduce the interest you pay on your cars if you are able to consolidate your debt into a personal loan. To your question about debt consolidation companies, as far as I know, that's all they do. However, long-term, there's only two ways to stay on top of debt: increase your income, or reduce your spending. Basically, if you can't or won't get a raise or a job that pays more (or a second job), you need to cut back on your spending. You might need to do something radical, like move somewhere with cheaper rent (as long as increased travel costs doesn't offset the saving). But you'll be much better off in the long run if you step back and take a look at your situation now, and make adjustments accordingly." }, { "docid": "456408", "title": "", "text": "Having been in exactly this position (not in a debt hole, built a budget to get a better view of what spending is), I can say what the greatest gift it brings is: it's a decision tool. When you are spending out of only one account, you often make decisions based on the total money in the account. “Should we go out for dinner? Can I make this impulse purchase?” This is terrible, because many, if not all, of those dollars are already intended for certain future expenses like groceries, bills, etc. You can't see how many of those dollars are discretionary. A budget is like having many accounts. Instead of looking at your real account(s) to make spending decisions, you look at your budget lines. You to want impulse buy a gadget — do you have money remaining in a relevant budget line? If yes, the decision is yours, if no, the budget is telling you that you don't have dollars for that.* Similarly for more prosaic purchases — you want to splurge on some non-staple groceries to make a fancy dinner or try out a new recipe, and the budget line for Groceries will tell you if you can do that. Instead of looking at (e.g.) $6000 in a chequing account, you're looking at $600 (assigned) − $146.86 (spend) = $453.14 (available) in a monthly groceries budget line. Just like you can now see where your money has been going, by maintaining and using your budget lines, and having every single dollar you spend go through the budget (to show your totally assigned, total spent, and total remaining), you can continue to see where your money is going in near real-time. You're no longer looking at bills and statements to figure out what's going on and plan, you're looking at money flows and future intentions, as you should be. This approach to budgeting has completely changed our finances. So that's what a budget is for: real-time spending decision-making control over your money, which for us has translated into a lovely mix of painless austerity in spending categories where austerity is smart, and guilt-free spending in more indulgent categories because we have already determined exactly how much we can afford and wish to spend. * A budget line with insufficient funds doesn't actually take the decision entirely away from you though. If a budget line doesn't have funds to spare for a given purchase, you can still make the purchase — but now you're also making the decision to go and revise your budget, taking dollars away from other budget lines to adjust the line you've overspent, to keep the budget accurate." } ]

[ { "docid": "228403", "title": "", "text": "​​​​​You're not missing anything. Excess cash is somewhat of a nebulous concept. To different people it means different things. The answer is that excess cash varies for each company depending on their business. For instance, some companies need very high amounts of working capital. A company may be increasing their inventories and therefore will require more cash on their balance sheet to fund growth. If a company always needs this extra cash, some investors prefer to leave that cash out of a valuation because the company cannot run profitably without it. Think about what happens to your calculation of Enterprise Value if you subtract excess cash as opposed to cash. Excess cash is always less than cash. Therefore by subtracting excess cash you increase EV. Since one common valuation metric is EV/EBITDA, a higher numerator will make the stock seem more expensive - that is the EV/EBITDA ratio will seem higher when using excess cash as opposed to cash. So using excess cash in your valuation methodology is basically a conservative concept. Depending on the business 20% of revenues seem way too high as a reserve for excess cash. 2% is a much better rule of thumb." } ]

[ { "docid": "281495", "title": "", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete." }, { "docid": "401266", "title": "", "text": "\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"" }, { "docid": "312811", "title": "", "text": "\"Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level. The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, \"\"actually\"\" and \"\"imaginary\"\" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever. The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading \"\"issuance (retirement) of stock\"\" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is \"\"issuance\"\"; when a company buys back their shares, it's called \"\"retirement\"\", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the \"\"equity\"\" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called \"\"common stock\"\". If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant. While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the \"\"basic weighted average\"\" and \"\"diluted weighted average\"\" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company. It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends).\"" }, { "docid": "123263", "title": "", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"" }, { "docid": "107092", "title": "", "text": "Your account entries are generally correct, but do note that the last transaction is a mixture of the balance sheet and income statement. If Quickbooks doesn't do this automatically then the expense must be manually removed from the balance sheet. The expense should be recognized on the balance sheet and income statement when it accrues, and it accrues when the prepaid rent is extinguished when consumed by the landlord, so that is when the second entry in your question should be booked. The cash flow statement will reflect all of these cash transactions immediately." }, { "docid": "152049", "title": "", "text": "\"I have some money invested on Merrill Edge. 2 days ago I purchased some mutual funds with most of the rest of my money in my account. I logged in today to see how it did, and noticed that there are 3 sections: Priced Investments, Cash & Money Accounts, and Pending Activity. In the Cash & Money section, there shows a negative balance of Cash (let's say -$1,000) and a positive \"\"Money Account Value\"\" (let's say +$1,100). The \"\"Money Account\"\" appears to be made up of $1 shares of something called \"\"ML Direct Deposit Program\"\". However, even though the mutual fund purchase was made 2 days ago, and the shares of the mutual funds are officially in my account, I'm still showing all of my \"\"Money Account\"\" shares ($1000). The balance sheet effectively makes it look like I somehow needed to have \"\"sold\"\" back my money account shares, converted them to cash, and then bought the funds. I'm hoping that isn't the case, and for some reason, there is a multiday lag between me buying stock and money getting deducted from my \"\"Money Account\"\". Hope that all makes sense. TLDR: what's the diff between a Cash account and Money Account that's filled with shares of \"\" ML Direct Deposit Program\"\"? Edit: Today the cash and money account offset by equal values equal to one of my mutual fund purchases.\"" }, { "docid": "280763", "title": "", "text": "I’m going to answer this because: Accounting books only reflect the dollar value of inventories. Which means if you look at the balance sheet of McDonalds, you will not see how many bags of French fries are remaining at their storage facility, you will only see the total value at cost basis. Your requirement for noting the number of shares purchased is not part of the double entry accounting system. When you transfer $10000 from bank to broker, the entries would be: The bank’s name and the broker’s name will not appear on the balance sheet. When you purchase 50 shares at $40 per share, the accounting system does not care about the number of shares or the price. All it cares is the $2000 total cost and the commission of $10. You have two choices, either place $10 to an expense account, or incorporate it into the total cost (making it $2010). The entries for the second method would be: Now your balance sheet would reflect: What happens if the price increases from $40 per share to $50 per share tomorrow? Do nothing. Your balance sheet will show the cost of $2010 until the shares are sold or the accounting period ends. It will not show the market value of $2500. Instead, the Portfolio Tracker would show $2500. The most basic tracker is https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio . Later if you finally sell the shares at $50 per share with $10 commission: Again, the number of shares will not be reflected anywhere in the accounting system. Only the total proceeds from the sale matters." }, { "docid": "385506", "title": "", "text": "A loan is most generally a liability, a part of the balance sheet. Expenses & income are part of the income statement. Income is the net of revenues after expenses. The interest is an expense on the income statement, but the loan itself does not reside there unless if it is defaulted and forgiven. Then it would become a revenue or contra-expense, depending on the methodology. The original purpose of the income statement is to show the net inflows of short term operational accruals which would exclude new borrowing and repaid loans. The cash flow statement will better show each cash event such as borrowing debt, repaying debt, or paying off a bill. To show how a loan may have funded a bill, which in theory it directly did not because an entity, be it a person or business, is like a single tank of water with multiple pipes filling and multiple pipes extracting, so it is impossible to know which exact inflow funded which exact outflow unless if there is only one inflow per period and one outflow per the same period. That being said, with a cash flow statement, the new loan will show a cash inflow when booked under the financing portion, and paying a bill will show a cash outflow when booked under the operating portion. With only those two transactions booked and an empty balance sheet beforehand, it could be determined that a new loan funded a bill payment." }, { "docid": "353369", "title": "", "text": "Determine how much you are going to save first. Then determine where you can spend your money. If you're living with your parents, try to build an emergency fund of six months income. The simplest way is to put half of your income in the emergency fund for a year. Try to save at least 10% of your income for retirement. The earlier you start this, the longer you'll have to let the magic of compounding work on it. If your employer offers a 401k with a match, do that first. If not, consider an IRA. You probably want to do a Roth now (because you probably pay little in taxes so the deduction from a standard IRA won't help you). After the year, you'll have an emergency fund. Work out how much money you'll need for rent, utilities, and groceries when you're on your own. Invest that in some way. Pay off student loans if you have any. Buy a car that you can keep a long time if you need one. Go to night school. Put any excess money in a savings account or mutual fund. This is money for doing things related to housing. Perhaps you'll need to buy a washer/dryer. Or pay a down payment on a mortgage eventually. Saving this money now does two things: first, it gives you savings for when you need it; second, it keeps you from getting used to spending your entire paycheck. If you are used to only having $200 of spending cash out of each check, you will fit your spending into that. If you are used to spending $800 every two weeks, it will be hard to cut your spending to make room for rent, etc." }, { "docid": "594011", "title": "", "text": "\"Straight Line Depreciation is the easiest method of depreciation, don't over think it. Straight Line = (Assets Cost - Assets Salvage Value)/Useful life In this case the Straight Line is $2m per year, it is not culmulative unless you are looking at accumulated depreciation account on the balance sheet. Here is a schedule of the depreciation: * Year 1 - $2m * Year 2 - $2m * Year 3 - $2m * Year 4 - $2m * Year 5 - $2m See, can't get much easier than that! Once you get into more complicated questions they'll throw tax rates at you and ask about cash flows, or the NPV of the cash flows. You need to take into account the fact that the Depreciation is not a \"\"cash expense\"\" but it does affect cash flow by reducing the taxable income of the project. Also, you need to consider the fact that the asset will be sold in year 5 and the value will need to be part of your cash flow and NPV calculations. I hope this was helpful, if not I'll try to do my best answering any other questions. Good Luck!\"" }, { "docid": "408546", "title": "", "text": "\"With regards to \"\"the stock market,\"\" there are actually two markets involved here: PRIMARY MARKET Value is created in the primary market where capital is exchanged for a residual interest in an opportunity. As a theoretical example, if a person operating solo (or with a small team) were to discover or create a breakthrough product, such as an retro-aging pill, that person likely wouldn't have the financial means to fully capitalize on his new-found idea. Others with more capital may also soon discover his idea or improve upon it and exploit it before he has a chance to. For a real life example, a person studying at a California university during the 1990s discovered a method to index internet webpages and was approached by some students after a talk on the subject. He returned to his native southern Europe country seeking funds to develop the web-indexing business and failed to do so. Two of the students that approached him found capital readily available from investors in their campus sphere; their business is today one of the biggest in the world. They had exchanged part of their residual interest for capital to develop their business. The primary market of the stock market works mostly same in creating value. It is also dependent upon the secondary market. SECONDARY MARKET The secondary market indicates the day-to-day value of an enterprise. That market allows shareholders to manage their risk appetites and the enterprise's operators to execute their shareholders' interest for gains. In most cases, a secondary market reference will be used for pricing a primary market issuance. Without that reference, capital would be allocated less efficiently creating additional costs for all involved, issuers and investors. Consider what would happen if you sought to purchase a house and the mortgage lenders had no indication what the property was worth. This would make capital very expensive or possibly deny you access to credit. By having an indication, all involved are better off. That is value creating. There are some large developed economies' equity markets, such as that in Germany, where many large enterprises stay privately held and credit financing, mostly from banks, is used. The approach has proven successful as well. So why do some nations' financial markets still rely on capricious stock markets when private credit financing may do just fine in many cases? It's largely a matter of national culture. Countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and the US have long had active equity markets in continuous use that investors have trusted for centuries. CONCLUSION When leaders of an enterprise wish to grow the business to a large size with investment from the stock market, they aren't limited by the size of their banks' capital. Those leaders and their prospective investors will rely on the secondary market to determine values. In addition, if the leaders raise equity instead of debt capital, they are usually accorded more flexibility to take risks since shareholders usually have their own flexibility to transfer those risks to other investors if for any number of reasons they choose to do so. Stock markets create value in many other ways. The above are the main ways.\"" }, { "docid": "532012", "title": "", "text": "\"Wow all the answers here are a joke. Retained earnings is a funding side (liabilities + equity) of the balance sheet accounting entry. It's a residual value, so if you end up funding your assets with more liabilities, for example, then retained earnings will be smaller. When worrying about the funding side of the balance sheet, you should consider mainly (1) how much you want in the business of your own money (equity) and (2) how much debt your business can support, as well as how much debt you're comfortable with. #2 is a function of looking at your income generating capacity. Once you've figured out how much you will fund with debt, you then need the remainder to be your money. Some of this is contributed capital, the rest is retained earnings. So to wonder about how much in retained earnings to have isn't really the way to think about it. You should have the \"\"debt vs. equity\"\" conversation with yourself and figure it out that way. Don't worry about the components of equity if you're a sole owner and it's all yours. (There are other ways to finance equity like preferred shares, but for all intents and purposes this is a small business). From a risk perspective, retained earnings is largely irrelevant on a standalone basis. You should pay far more attention to your assets. For example, if you asked \"\"how much cash or working capital do I need?\"\", that's an operational question that's very important to know for running the business. It can be debated and there is a right answer. Retained earnings is just a partial accounting entry of equity (and can even be manipulated by repurchasing shares and then contributing more capital), so I wouldn't focus on it.\"" }, { "docid": "480128", "title": "", "text": "The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative." }, { "docid": "492053", "title": "", "text": "\"Taxes are triggered when you sell the individual stock. The IRS doesn't care which of your accounts the money is in. They view all your bank and brokerage accounts as if they are one big account mashed together. That kind of lumping is standard accounting practice for businesses. P/L, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. will clump cash accounts as \"\"cash\"\". Taxes are also triggered when they pay you a dividend. That's why ETFs are preferable to mutual funds; ETFs automatically fold the dividends back into the ETF's value, so it doesn't cause a taxable event. Less paperwork. None of the above applies to retirement accounts. They are special. You don't report activity inside retirement accounts, because it would be very hard for regular folk to do that reporting, so that would discourage them from taking IRAs. Taxes are paid at withdrawal time (or in Roth's, never.)\"" }, { "docid": "85478", "title": "", "text": "\"You didn't have a situation of \"\"excess contribution\"\". If you have proof that someone in Fidelity actually told you what you said, you might try to recover some of your losses through a lawsuit. However, their first (and main) defense would be that they're not in the business of providing tax advice, and it is your problem that you asked random person a tax question, and then acted on an incorrect answer. By the way, that only goes to say that anything you might read here you should, as well, take with a grain of salt. The only one who can give you a tax advice is a licensed tax professional. I explained it in details in my blog post, but in short - it is either an EA (Enrolled Agent, with the IRS credentials), or a CPA (Certified Public Accountant) or Attorney licensed in your State. Back to your question - \"\"Excess Contribution\"\" to a IRA is when you contribute in excess to the limits imposed. For Traditional IRA in 2012 the limit was $5000. You contributed $4000 - this means that you were not in excess. There's nothing they can \"\"correct\"\", the 1099-R you got seems to be correct and in order. What you did have was a case of non-deductible contribution. Non-deductible contribution to your IRA should have been reported to the IRS on form 8606. Non-deductible contribution creates basis in your IRA. Withdrawals from your IRA are prorated to the relation of your basis to your total value, and the taxable amount is determined based on that rate. It is, also, calculated using form 8606. So in short - you should have filed a form 8606 with your 2012 tax return declaring non-deductible IRA and creating $4000 basis, and then form 8606 with your 2013 tax return calculating which portion of the $4000 you withdrew is non-taxable. If your total IRA (in all accounts) was that $4000 - then nothing would be taxable. Talk to a tax adviser, you might need to amend your 2012 return (or send the 2012 form separately, if possible), and then do some math on your 2013 return. If 60 days haven't passed, you might want to consider depositing the $4000 in a Roth IRA and perform what is called \"\"Conversion\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "206505", "title": "", "text": "Regardless of how long the mortgage has left, the return you get on prepayments is identical to the mortgage rate. (What happens on your tax return is a different matter.) It's easier to get a decent financial calculator (The TI BA-35 is my favorite) than to construct spreadsheets which may or may not contain equation errors. When I duplicate John's numbers, $100K mortgage, 4% rate, I get a 60 mo remaining balance of 90,447.51 and with $50 extra, $87132.56, a diff of $3314.95. $314.95 return on the $3000. $315 over 5yrs is $63/yr, over an average $1500 put in, 63/1500 = 4.2%. Of course the simple math of just averaging the payment creates that .2% error. A 60 payment $50 returning $314.95 produces 4.000%. @Peter K - with all due respect, there's nothing for me about time value of money calculations that can be counter-intuitive. While I like playing with spreadsheets, the first thing I do is run a few scenarios and double check using the calculator. Your updated sheet is now at 3.76%? A time vaule of money calculation should not have rounding errors that larger. It's larger than my back of envelope calculation. @Kaushik - if you don't need the money, and would buy a CD at the rate of your mortgage, then pay early. Nothing wrong with that." }, { "docid": "109903", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals." }, { "docid": "581634", "title": "", "text": "There is a way to get a reasonable estimate of what you still owe, and then the way to get the exact value. When the loan started they should have given you amortization table that laid out each payment including the principal, interest and balance for each payment. If there are any other fees included in the payment those also should have been detailed. Determine how may payments you have maid: did you make the first payment on day one, or the start of the next month? Was the last payment the 24th, or the next one? The table will then tell you what you owe after your most recent payment. To get the exact value call the lender. The amount grows between payment due to the interest that is accumulating. They will need to know when the payment will arrive so they can give you the correct value. To calculate how much you will save do the following calculation: payment = monthly payment for principal and interest paymentsmade =Number of payments made = 24 paymentsremaining = Number of payments remaining = 60 - paymentsmade = 60-24 = 36 instantpayoff = number from loan company savings = (payment * paymentsremaining ) - instantpayoff" }, { "docid": "444241", "title": "", "text": "\"lol, please, calculate the correlation and let me know how close to 1 it is. And then let me know what kind of sensible economic model looks like SPX Level = const + beta * Fed Balance Sheet Level. That's a great way to just throw useful statistical inference out the fucking window. Edit: I'd also like to make it abundantly clear that this is a monumentally retarded \"\"correlation\"\" to consider in the first place. The Fed balance sheet prior to 2008 was relatively tiny and unchanging, and yet the stock market was just as volatile in prior years.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "2304", "title": "", "text": "20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?" } ]

[ { "docid": "351672", "title": "", "text": "\"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word \"\"asset\"\" has a fairly straight forward definition. Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value. The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. \"\"Liability\"\" is tougher to define, and depends on context. In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed. It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value. It is not a debt. Many people use the word \"\"liability\"\" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income. (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.) With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead. An expense is a cost of doing business. For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen. The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business. It is simply a necessary expense for your business.\"" }, { "docid": "128469", "title": "", "text": "\"Since doodle77 handled arbitrage, I'll take goodwill. Goodwill is an accounting term that acts much like a \"\"plug\"\" account: you add/subtract to it the amount that makes everything balance. In the case of goodwill, it generally only applies to mergers & acquisitions. The theory (and justification) is this: firms buy other firms at prices other than the market price (usually higher), and it is assumed that this is because the acquirer values its acquisition more than other people do. But whether you use historical prices or market prices when you add (subtract) assets and liabilities to to (from) your balance sheet, this will never add up, because you paid more (less) than the assets are worth in the market, so more (less) cash flowed out than assets flowed in. The difference goes into the goodwill account, so firms with a large goodwill account are ones that have made lots of acquisitions.\"" }, { "docid": "407372", "title": "", "text": "\"QUICK ANSWER What @Mike Haskel wrote is generally correct that the indirect method for cash flow statement reporting, which most US companies use, can sometimes produce different results that don't clearly reconcile with balance sheet shifts. With regards to accounts receivables, this is especially so when there is a major increase or decrease in the company's allowances for doubtful accounts. In this case, there is more to the company's balance sheet and cash flow statements differences per its accounts receivables than its allowances for doubtful accounts seems responsible for. As explained below, the difference, $1.25bn, is likely owing more to currency shifts and how they are accounted for than to other factors. = = = = = = = = = = DIRTY DETAILS Microsoft Corp. generally sells to high-quality / high-credit buyers; mostly PC, server and other devices manufacturers and licensees. It hence made doubtful accounts provisions of $16mn for its $86,833mn (0.018%) of 2014 sales and wrote off $51mn of its carrying balance during the year. Its accounting for \"\"Other comprehensive income\"\" captures the primary differences of many accounts; specifically in this case, the \"\"foreign currency translation\"\" figure that comprises many balance sheet accounts and net out against shareholders' equity (i.e. those assets and liabilities bypass the income statement). The footnotes include this explanation: Assets and liabilities recorded in foreign currencies are translated at the exchange rate on the balance sheet date. Revenue and expenses are translated at average rates of exchange prevailing during the year. Translation adjustments resulting from this process are recorded to other comprehensive income (“OCI”) What all this means is that those two balance sheet figures are computed by translating all the accounts with foreign currency balances (in this case, accounts receivables) into the reporting currency, US dollars (USD), at the date of the balance sheets, June 30 of the years 2013 and 2014. The change in accounts receivables cash flow figure is computed by first determining the average exchange rates for all the currencies it uses to conduct business and applying them respectively to the changes in each non-USD accounts receivables during the periods. For this reason, almost all multinational companies that report using indirect cash flow statements will have discrepancies between the changes in their reported working capital changes during a period and the dates of their balance sheet and it's usually because of currency shifts during the period.\"" }, { "docid": "220269", "title": "", "text": "Makes sense. I typed the previous reply on an ipad and was too lazy to go into the fact that as you point out the cash exits the balance sheet so in a DCF it doesn't get any weight in the terminal value calculation which makes up a significant chunk of an EV normally." }, { "docid": "516548", "title": "", "text": "The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars." }, { "docid": "419356", "title": "", "text": "\"The other answers have touched on amortization, early payment, computation of interest, etc, which are all very important, but I think there's another way to understand the importance of knowing the P/I breakdown. The question mentions the loan payment as \"\"cash outflow\"\". That is true, but from an accounting perspective (disclaimer: I am not an accountant, but I know enough of the basics to be dangerous), the outflow needs to be directed to different accounts. The loan principal appears as a liability on your personal balance sheet, which you could use, for example, in determining net worth. The principal amount in your payment should be applied to reduce the liability account. The interest payment goes into the expense account. Another way to look at it is that the principal, while it does reduce your cash account, can be thought of as an internal transfer to the liability account, thus reducing the size of the liability. The interest payment cannot. Aside: From this perspective, the value of the home is an asset, and the difference between the asset account and the loan liability account is the equity in the house (as pointed out in different language by the accepted answer). Of course, precisely determining the value of an illiquid asset like a house at any given moment pretty much requires you to actually sell it, so those accounts are hard to maintain in real-time (the liability of the loan is much easier to track).\"" }, { "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": "20863", "title": "", "text": "What keshlam said is correct. In bookkeeping terms, what you are doing is transferring value from some kind of cash account (which may in turn be backed by a loan) to an asset. Effectively, you are exchanging one asset for another. That asset you are exchanging to is the land that you are buying, which has some value, and which should end up on the asset side of your balance sheet. Unfortunately, particularly with fixed assets where no two ones are alike, such as land, it's often very hard to know the exact value unless and until you sell it. An appraiser can get you an estimate, but only sealing a deal with an actual buyer can get you an exact value, and at that point, the asset is no longer yours." }, { "docid": "279845", "title": "", "text": "\"Credit Cards typically charge interest on money you borrow from them. They work in one of two ways. Most cards will not charge you any interest if you pay the balance in full each month. You typically have around 25 days (the \"\"grace period\"\") to pay that off. If that's the case, then you will use your credit card without any cost to yourself. However, if you do not pay it in full by that point, then you will owe 19.9% interest on the balance, typically from the day you charged the payment (so, retroactively). You'll also immediately begin owing interest on anything else you charge - typically, even if you do then pay the next month the entire balance on time. It's typically a \"\"daily\"\" rate, which means that the annual rate (APR) is divided into its daily rate (think the APR divided by 365 - though it's a bit different than that, since it's the rate which would be 19.9% annualized when you realize interest is paid on interest). Say in your case it's 0.05% daily - that means, each day, 0.05% is added to your balance due. If you charged $1000 on day one and never made a payment (but never had to - ignore penalties here), you'd owe $1199 at the end of the year, paying $199 interest (19.9*1000). Note that your interest is calculated on the daily balance, not on your actual credit limit - if you only charge $100, you'd owe $19.90 interest, not $199. Also note that this simplifies what they're actually doing. They often use things like \"\"average daily balance\"\" calculations and such to work out actual interest charged; they tend to be similar to what I'm describing, but usually favor the bank a bit (or, are simpler to calculate). Finally: some credit cards do not have a grace period. In the US, most do, but not all; in other countries it may be less common. Some simply charge you interest from day one. As far as \"\"Standard Purchases\"\", that means buying services or goods. Using your credit card for cash advances (i.e., receiving cash from an ATM), using those checks they mail you, or for cash-like purchases (for example, at a casino), are often under a different scheme; they may have the same rate, or a different rate. They likely incur interest from the moment cash is produced (no grace period), and they may involve additional fees. Never use cash advances unless you absolutely cannot avoid it.\"" }, { "docid": "393838", "title": "", "text": "\"tl;dr It's a difference between cash and cash equivalents and net cash and cash equivalents. Download the 2016 annual report from http://www.diageo.com/en-us/investor/Pages/financialreports.aspx On page 99 is the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows at the bottom is a section \"\"Net cash and cash equivalents consist of:\"\" Net cash and cash equivalents consist of: 2016-06-30 2015-06-30 Cash and cash equivalents 1,089 472 Bank overdrafts (280) (90) 809 382 The difference between net cash of 809 million and 382 million is 427 million, matching the \"\"Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents\"\" from Yahoo. I do not know that bank overdrafts mean in this situation, but appears to cause cash to show up on balance sheet without being reflected in the net cash portions of the cash flow statement. And the numbers seem like balances, not year of year changes like the rest of the statement of cash flows. 2015 net CCE 382 2016 cash flow + 427 ---- 2016 net CCE 809 Cash from overdrafts + 280 ---- 2015 balance sheet cash 1,089\"" }, { "docid": "173132", "title": "", "text": "\"My opinion: including the value of depreciating property one owns in a net worth calculation is silly - but could be interesting You don't expect your TV or laptop to gain value. Instead, you expect them to decrease in value every year until you replace them. Anything you expect to hold or increase in value (art, a house, etc) is a different story. If you'd like to really get anal about this, you can track your net worth like a business would track its balance sheet. I'm not going to go into detail, but the general idea is that when you purchase an item, you debit the cost from \"\"cash\"\" and add the value paid to \"\"assets\"\" (so your net worth doesn't change when you make a purchase). You then depreciate the value of the item under \"\"assets\"\" according to a depreciation schedule. If you plan on replacing your laptop every three years, you might subtract 33% of the value every year. This could be an interesting exercise (i.e. even if you make money, your net worth may decrease because of all the depreciating junk you own), but my hunch is that it wouldn't be worth the effort it requires.\"" }, { "docid": "444241", "title": "", "text": "\"lol, please, calculate the correlation and let me know how close to 1 it is. And then let me know what kind of sensible economic model looks like SPX Level = const + beta * Fed Balance Sheet Level. That's a great way to just throw useful statistical inference out the fucking window. Edit: I'd also like to make it abundantly clear that this is a monumentally retarded \"\"correlation\"\" to consider in the first place. The Fed balance sheet prior to 2008 was relatively tiny and unchanging, and yet the stock market was just as volatile in prior years.\"" }, { "docid": "420727", "title": "", "text": "One way to analyze the opportunity cost of using a 401K loan would be to calculate your net worth after using a 401K loan. If your net worth increases then the 401K loan would be advisable. Note that the calculations provided below do not take into account tax considerations. A net worth calculation is where you add all your assets and then subtract all your liabilities. The resulting number is your net worth. First, calculate the net worth of not taking the loan and simply paying the credit card interest. This means you only pay the interest on the credit card. In addition to the parameters identified in your question, two additional parameters will need to be considered: Cash and the market rate of return on the 401K. Scenario 1 (only pay credit card interest): After 12 months all you have paid is the interest on the credit card. The 401K balance is untouched so it will hopefully grow. The balance on the credit card remains at the end of 12 months. Scenario 2 (use 401K loan to pay credit card balance): You borrow $5,000 from your 401K to pay the credit card balance. You will have to pay $5,000 plus the 401K interest rate back into your 401K account. Use the following equation to determine when Scenario 2 increases your net worth more than scenario 1: Thus, if your credit card interest rate is greater than the rate you can earn on your 401K then use the 401K loan to pay off the credit card balance. Another scenario that should be considered: borrow money from somewhere else to pay off the credit card balance. Scenario 3 (external loan to pay credit card balance): You borrow $5,000 from somewhere besides your 401K to pay off the credit card balance. The following is used to determine if you should use an external loan over the 401K loan: This means you should use an external loan if you can obtain an interest rate less than the rate of return you can earn on your 401K. The same methodology can be used to compare Scenario 3 to Scenario 1." }, { "docid": "514045", "title": "", "text": "\"If a company earns $1 Million in net profit (let's say all cash, which is not entirely realistic), it can do one of three things with it: On the balance sheet - profits that have not been distributed show up as \"\"retained earnings\"\". When dividends are paid, Retained Earnings and cash are reduced. None of the other options change the fact that it is still \"\"profit\"\" - they all just affect the balance sheet, not the income statement: Note that when a company issues dividends, it reduces its per-share value since cash is leaving the door with nothing in return. In Apple's case, since a significant amount of its profit was earned in other countries (where it was not taxed by the US), it would pay a significant amount in US corporate tax by bringing it back to the US by investing it or paying dividends. They are betting that at some point, the US will change the rules to make it more favorable to \"\"repatriate\"\" the money and reduce their tax significantly.\"" }, { "docid": "60088", "title": "", "text": "When evaluating a refinance, it all comes down to the payback. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. There are different reasons for refinancing, and they all have different methods for calculating payback. One reason to finance is to get a lower interest rate. When determining the payback time, you calculate how long it would take to recover your closing costs with the amount you save in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. The longer you hold the mortgage after you refinance, the more money you save in interest with the new rate. Generally, it doesn't pay to refinance to a lower rate right before you sell, because you aren't holding the mortgage long enough to see the interest savings. You seem to be 3 years away from selling, so you might be able to see some savings here in the next three years. A second reason people refinance is to lower their monthly payment if they are having trouble paying it. I see you are considering switching from a 15 year to a 30 year; is one of your goals to reduce your monthly payment? By refinancing to a 30 year, you'll be paying a lot of interest in your first few years of payments, extending the payback time of your lower interest rate. A third reason people refinance is to pull cash out of their equity. This applies to you as well. Since you are planning on using it to remodel the home you are trying to sell, you have to ask yourself if the renovations you are planning will payoff in the increased sale price of your home. Often, renovations don't increase the value of their home as much as they cost. You do renovations because you will enjoy living in the renovated home, and you get some of your money back when you sell. But sometimes you can increase the value of your home by enough to cover the cost of the renovation. Talk to a real estate agent in your area to get their advice on how much the renovations you are talking about will increase the value of your home." }, { "docid": "358686", "title": "", "text": "\"Look, as my final comment. You're overthinking this. Companies routinely have waaaay more cash on their books than they \"\"need\"\" because they keep a rainy day fund. Yes, there are extreme examples like Apple that has about 60 billion more than they need but practically all companies are going to maintain excess cash for emergencies, acquisitions, etc. As I said in another comment, the common theme between a DCF and an EV multiple is that they are both capital structure independent. Even here there are going to be differences, companies with a really shitty capital structure (read: too much debt) will trade publicly at a lower enterprise value multiple because of the risk that they go bankrupt. In an acquisition, this (probably) would not be the case. In the case of a DCF, you would probably raise your discount rate to account for the risk of bankruptcy.\"" }, { "docid": "257093", "title": "", "text": "The primary drivers of cash flow in a software firm is the productivity and skill of your employees. How is that reflected in a balance sheet? Well, take a company like Adobe or Salesforce, or even Microsoft. What would you be able to tell about each from their balance sheets? You can look at their cash level, and what else would matter?" }, { "docid": "288633", "title": "", "text": "\"The basic equation taught in day one of accounting school is that Assets = Liabilities + Equity. My first point was that I looked at the actual financial statements published as of the end of the 2nd quarter 2017, and the total liabilities on their audited balance sheet were like $13 billion, not $20b. I don't know where the author got their numbers from. My second point: Debt usually needs to be paid on prearranged terms agreed upon by the debtor and the debtee, including interest, so it is important for a business to keep track of what they owe and to whom, so they can make timely payments. As long as they have the cash on hand to make payments plus whatever interest they owe, and the owners are happy with the total return on their investment, then it doesn't really matter how debt they have on the balance sheet. Remember the equation A=L+E. There are precisely two ways to finance a business that wants to acquire assets: liabilities and/or equity. The \"\"appropriate\"\" level of debt vs equity on a balance sheet varies wildly, and totally depends on the industry, size of the business, cash flow, personal preferences of the CEO, CFO, shareholders et al, etc. It gets way more detailed and complicated than that obviously, but the point is that looking at debt alone is a meaningless metric. This is corporate finance and accounting 101, so you can probably find tons of great articles and videos if you want to learn more.\"" }, { "docid": "532012", "title": "", "text": "\"Wow all the answers here are a joke. Retained earnings is a funding side (liabilities + equity) of the balance sheet accounting entry. It's a residual value, so if you end up funding your assets with more liabilities, for example, then retained earnings will be smaller. When worrying about the funding side of the balance sheet, you should consider mainly (1) how much you want in the business of your own money (equity) and (2) how much debt your business can support, as well as how much debt you're comfortable with. #2 is a function of looking at your income generating capacity. Once you've figured out how much you will fund with debt, you then need the remainder to be your money. Some of this is contributed capital, the rest is retained earnings. So to wonder about how much in retained earnings to have isn't really the way to think about it. You should have the \"\"debt vs. equity\"\" conversation with yourself and figure it out that way. Don't worry about the components of equity if you're a sole owner and it's all yours. (There are other ways to finance equity like preferred shares, but for all intents and purposes this is a small business). From a risk perspective, retained earnings is largely irrelevant on a standalone basis. You should pay far more attention to your assets. For example, if you asked \"\"how much cash or working capital do I need?\"\", that's an operational question that's very important to know for running the business. It can be debated and there is a right answer. Retained earnings is just a partial accounting entry of equity (and can even be manipulated by repurchasing shares and then contributing more capital), so I wouldn't focus on it.\"" } ]

[ { "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": "322459", "title": "", "text": "\"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses. So to address your \"\"minimum cash\"\" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this: So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of \"\"added value\"\" that a public company would bring to the mix. You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash. You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing \"\"minimum cash levels\"\" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors. Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it.\"" }, { "docid": "206505", "title": "", "text": "Regardless of how long the mortgage has left, the return you get on prepayments is identical to the mortgage rate. (What happens on your tax return is a different matter.) It's easier to get a decent financial calculator (The TI BA-35 is my favorite) than to construct spreadsheets which may or may not contain equation errors. When I duplicate John's numbers, $100K mortgage, 4% rate, I get a 60 mo remaining balance of 90,447.51 and with $50 extra, $87132.56, a diff of $3314.95. $314.95 return on the $3000. $315 over 5yrs is $63/yr, over an average $1500 put in, 63/1500 = 4.2%. Of course the simple math of just averaging the payment creates that .2% error. A 60 payment $50 returning $314.95 produces 4.000%. @Peter K - with all due respect, there's nothing for me about time value of money calculations that can be counter-intuitive. While I like playing with spreadsheets, the first thing I do is run a few scenarios and double check using the calculator. Your updated sheet is now at 3.76%? A time vaule of money calculation should not have rounding errors that larger. It's larger than my back of envelope calculation. @Kaushik - if you don't need the money, and would buy a CD at the rate of your mortgage, then pay early. Nothing wrong with that." }, { "docid": "587508", "title": "", "text": "Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest. Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents. EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning?" }, { "docid": "81941", "title": "", "text": "\"From your question, I believe that you are looking for what these mean in accounting terms and not the difference between a debit and a credit card. I'll deal with purchase and sale first as this is easier. They are the same thing seen from different points of view. If I sell something to you then I have made a sale and you have made a purchase. Every sale is a purchase and every purchase is a sale. Debits and Credits are accounting terms and refer to double column accounting (the most common accounting system used). The way a set of accounts works is, accounts are set up under the following broad headings: The first 3 appear on the Balance Sheet, so called because the accounts balance (Assets = Liabilities + Equity). This is always a \"\"point-in-time\"\" snapshot of the accounts (1 June 2015). That last 3 appear on the Profit and Loss sheet, Profit (or loss) = Income - Cost of Goods Sold - Expenses. This is always an interval measure (1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015). Changes in these accounts flow through to the Equity part of the Balance Sheet. When you enter a transaction the Debits always equal the Credits, they are simply applied to different accounts. Debits increase Assets, Cost of Goods Sold and Expenses and decrease Liabilities, Equity and Income. Credits do the reverse For your examples: 1. a customer buy something from me, what is the debit and credit? I will assume they pay $1,000 and the thing cost you $500 Your cash (asset) goes up by $1,000 (Debit), your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This gives you a profit of $500. 2. a customer buy something of worth 1000 but gives me 500 what is debit and credit Your cash (asset) goes up by $500 (Debit), your debtors (asset) goes up by $500, your inventory (asset) goes down by $500 (Credit), your Sales revenue (income) goes up by $500 (credit). This also gives you a profit of $500. 3. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and pay equally what is credit and debit I assume you mean pay cash: Your cash (asset) goes down by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have swapped one asset (cash) for another (inventory). 4. if I buy a product from supplier worth 1000 and don't pay what is credit and debit Your creditors (liability) goes up by $1000 (Credit), your inventory (asset) goes up by $1000 (Debit). There is no profit or loss here - you have gained an asset (inventory) but incurred a liability (creditors). The reason for confusion is that most people only see Debits and Credits in one place - their bank statement. Your bank statement is a journal of one of the banks liability accounts - its their liability because they owe the money to you (even loan accounts adopt this convention). Credits happen when you give money to the bank, they credit your account (increase a liability) and debit their cash balance (increase an asset). Debits are when they give money to you, they debit your account (decrease a liability) and credit their cash balance (decrease an asset) . If at the end of the period, you have a credit balance then they owe money to you, a debit balance means you owe money to them. If you were keeping a book of accounts then your record of the transactions would be a mirror image of the bank's because you would be looking at it from your point of view.\"" }, { "docid": "158520", "title": "", "text": "There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]" }, { "docid": "281495", "title": "", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete." }, { "docid": "556946", "title": "", "text": "\"As a self-employed Handyman I can tell you this. Any work that is done, be it professional, part-time, hobby or whatever else, has to answer to two primary criteria. As you asked, it has to be worthwhile in financial terms and more importantly in personal terms. In the long term, charging low rates will demoralize her. Not worth it. Someone once said; \"\"I have no quarrel with he who charges cheaply, because who better then he knows the value of his services\"\"? Obviously one has to remain reasonable. Then there is an ambush factor in working for yourself. I call it syphoning losses since they are extremely difficult to calculate as noted above here already. In the first place they are extremely difficult to detect anyway. Micro-management will not tell you the losses, you can only do it at the end of a period on a balance sheet. Then you have to calculate a fair price in terms of lessons given and monies received. The trick is to gain a fair assessment of worth to her without her needing to go into the books, just as a simple gut feel. She needs to really feel good about it to maintain motivation for the future. Otherwise, I did it, it does not work. The other consideration is that when money changes hands it places a benchmark on the tuition and the relationship. One. It locks her into delivering professional work as she already is one. Two. The students will be locked into giving fair and excellent commitment in being taught. A simple calculation goes like this; Use the time span of a month as it is easier to break down available time per week. Also remember that there will perforce be extra hours spent in consultation with parents, this is a syphoning cost, it has be calculated. Difficult at the start, but keep track of it. One other thing. I do not give discounts of extend favours, but I keep my prices reasonable. [[I was told I am some 25% more expensive than the latest quotes, but I kept on getting work with a high execution to quotation rate.]] Floating prices are impossible to track, manage and justify, people talk to each other, whether you like it or not. Do proper, reasonable calculations and be up front to all about how you work. In contract on paper. It just may be necessary to scale prices from beginner to advanced classes. OK, $50 seems a fair price, I don't live in the States, but about three/four Big Mac's would compare about right. You are NOT selling time, you ARE selling expertise. Decide how much she wants out of it per month. Forget retirement, you live now. This income will also cover other \"\"invisible\"\" extraneous work. Determine how much time will be spent in giving lessons. You can only charge for \"\"visible\"\" work done. Basic Hourly Rate = Monthly Income / Lesson Hours. Then there's a catch. Research has shown that owners of one man and small businesses spend about 55% of their time in getting new business. So,now. Charged Hourly Rate = Basic Hourly Rate DIVIDED by 45%. This could frighten you, but these are hard commercial facts. Things could appear to be extremely expensive. You will; however; have a solid base from which to decide as you go further. The accounting is a good place to start, but she, you both rather, have to feel good about the rewards and the counter performances. Great success to you both!\"" }, { "docid": "446214", "title": "", "text": "\"What is a bond price? A bond is an asset, and like any tradeable asset it has a price. If I hold $10K face value of a certain GM bond, then I would be willing to sell it at some price, which may be more or less than $10K. Whoever is willing to sell it for the lowest amount determines the price. The price is determined by the market, just as all prices are. It's what you can sell a bond for. Bond prices may be quoted in various funny ways, like as a discount or premium relative to the face value or as a premium over a treasury, but at the end it all should be converted to how much you have to pay today. In this case, it's how much you would pay today to get a set of future coupon and principal payments. What is Yield to Maturity? A bond is a contract entitling you to a certain set of predefined cash flows. If you take that set of cash flows and discount them using a single rate at all maturities such that the discounted value is equal to the price, the single rate you have identified is the YTM. Mathematically, this is the same as finding the IRR (internal rate of return) of some set of cash flows. In this case the cash flows are the coupons and principal repayment. Other bond concepts. Note that the other aspects of a bond, like maturity, coupon rate, and face value, are immutably written into the bond contract. All they do is define what payments the bond entitles the owner to. They don't say how much someone would pay today in order to be entitled to those payments. One can't know how much a future payment is worth without discounting. If you know the appropriate discount rate at every relevant maturity, you could calculate the fair price of a bond. That's the other direction. YTM looks at the market price and associated cash flows and imputes what single discount rate would make that price fair. What is YTM good for? Recall what I said about IRR above. Why would anyone want to know what discount rate equates the cash flows of a project to its cost? Because it's an easy way to summarize how profitable the project is expected to be. YTM is a quick way to summarize the yield one would get on a bond if they were to buy it today and hold to maturity. If one bond has a higher YTM than another, than heuristically we believe it pays out more and should be associated with greater risk if the market is working properly. It can be used to compare bonds or to look at how changes in bond prices are affecting expected yields. Ask yourself, how would you compare two different bonds with different maturities and coupon rates? Which one is riskier or more profitable? The simplest way to summarize this information is with the yield to maturity. YTM is used frequently enough that when you just say a bond's \"\"yield,\"\" people will assume you are talking about its yield to maturity. What is YTM not good for? One thing to be wary of is using YTM as a discount rate. It looks like a discount rate but it works for that bond and that bond only. In reality each individual coupon payment has a true discount rate, and the discount rate at each horizon is different from each other horizon. Those are true discount rates that can be applied to any cash flow of similar risk to get the right price. We can think of YTM as some kind of average of those discount rates that produces the correct price for that bond only. You should never use it for discounting something else.\"" }, { "docid": "107092", "title": "", "text": "Your account entries are generally correct, but do note that the last transaction is a mixture of the balance sheet and income statement. If Quickbooks doesn't do this automatically then the expense must be manually removed from the balance sheet. The expense should be recognized on the balance sheet and income statement when it accrues, and it accrues when the prepaid rent is extinguished when consumed by the landlord, so that is when the second entry in your question should be booked. The cash flow statement will reflect all of these cash transactions immediately." }, { "docid": "380851", "title": "", "text": "\"From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued. Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the market value of these components. For example, in many professional valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should, therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under \"\"Technical Considerations\"\" there and you will see that the \"\"access to data on cash and debts\"\" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum.\"" }, { "docid": "132180", "title": "", "text": "\"Will the investment bank evaluate the worth of my company more than or less than 50 crs. Assuming the salvage value of the assets of 50 crs (meaning that's what you could sell them for to someone else), that would be the minimum value of your company (less any outstanding debts). There are many ways to calculate the \"\"value\"\" of a company, but the most common one is to look at the future potential for generating cash. The underwriters will look at what your current cash flow projections are, and what they will be when you invest the proceeds from the public offering back into the company. That will then be used to determine the total value of the company, and in turn the value of the portion that you are taking public. And what will be the owner’s share in the resulting public company? That's completely up to you. You're essentially selling a part of the company in order to bring cash in, presumably to invest in assets that will generate more cash in the future. If you want to keep complete control of the company, then you'll want to sell less than 50% of the company, otherwise you can sell as much or as little as you want.\"" }, { "docid": "492053", "title": "", "text": "\"Taxes are triggered when you sell the individual stock. The IRS doesn't care which of your accounts the money is in. They view all your bank and brokerage accounts as if they are one big account mashed together. That kind of lumping is standard accounting practice for businesses. P/L, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. will clump cash accounts as \"\"cash\"\". Taxes are also triggered when they pay you a dividend. That's why ETFs are preferable to mutual funds; ETFs automatically fold the dividends back into the ETF's value, so it doesn't cause a taxable event. Less paperwork. None of the above applies to retirement accounts. They are special. You don't report activity inside retirement accounts, because it would be very hard for regular folk to do that reporting, so that would discourage them from taking IRAs. Taxes are paid at withdrawal time (or in Roth's, never.)\"" }, { "docid": "516548", "title": "", "text": "The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars." }, { "docid": "366249", "title": "", "text": "You wouldn't know it's value (Enterprise Value) without knowing its cash balance. The equation: EV = Market Cap + Minority Interest + Preferred Stock + Debt - Cash Enterprise Value is the value of the company to ALL shareholders (creditors, preferred stock holders, common stock holders). So, taking on debt could either increase or decrease the EV depending on the cash balance of the company. This will have no effect, directly, on the market cap. It will, however effect the present value of its future cash flows as the WACC will increase due to the new cost of debt (interest payments, higher risk of bankruptcy, less flexibility by management)." }, { "docid": "514045", "title": "", "text": "\"If a company earns $1 Million in net profit (let's say all cash, which is not entirely realistic), it can do one of three things with it: On the balance sheet - profits that have not been distributed show up as \"\"retained earnings\"\". When dividends are paid, Retained Earnings and cash are reduced. None of the other options change the fact that it is still \"\"profit\"\" - they all just affect the balance sheet, not the income statement: Note that when a company issues dividends, it reduces its per-share value since cash is leaving the door with nothing in return. In Apple's case, since a significant amount of its profit was earned in other countries (where it was not taxed by the US), it would pay a significant amount in US corporate tax by bringing it back to the US by investing it or paying dividends. They are betting that at some point, the US will change the rules to make it more favorable to \"\"repatriate\"\" the money and reduce their tax significantly.\"" }, { "docid": "351672", "title": "", "text": "\"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word \"\"asset\"\" has a fairly straight forward definition. Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value. The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. \"\"Liability\"\" is tougher to define, and depends on context. In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed. It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value. It is not a debt. Many people use the word \"\"liability\"\" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income. (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.) With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead. An expense is a cost of doing business. For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen. The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business. It is simply a necessary expense for your business.\"" }, { "docid": "129481", "title": "", "text": "I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)..." }, { "docid": "401266", "title": "", "text": "\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"" }, { "docid": "99751", "title": "", "text": "\"Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being \"\"what my stuff is worth\"\" and equity and liabilities together as being \"\"who owns it.\"\" The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "211867", "title": "", "text": "The 2 and 20 rule is a premium arrangement that hedge funds offer and venture capital funds offer, and they also offer different variations of it. The 2 is the management fee as percent of assets under management, the 20 is the profit cut, which they only get if they are profitable. There are 0/20, 1/15, and many variations. You're assuming that nobody offers this arrangement because it isn't offered to you, but that's because nobody offers it to people that aren't wealthy enough to legally qualify for their fund. When you park 6 or 7 figure amounts in bank accounts, they'll send your information out to the funds that operate the way you wish they operated." } ]

[ { "docid": "99151", "title": "", "text": "If your father is still able to make financial decisions and sign contracts, I see a better option. Have your father borrow against his equity to finance the renovation. Example: the house is worth 400 now. He can borrow 100 against that. He spends it on the addition, making the house worth 500, with the same 400 of equity as before. (In some cases, spending 100 might add 150 to the house value, but let's assume here the increase is just what was spent.) When he dies, the mortgage has to be repaid. If he has no other money (that the two of you would otherwise split) then the mortgage has to be repaid by the two of you putting in cash. So you pay your brother 250 (half the new total value of the house) but he gives 50 of that to the bank for the mortgage. You also give 50 of your own money to the bank for the mortgage. Net result: your brother has 200 (the same as if he had inherited half the unimproved house), and you have a 500 house after paying out 300. Your gain is also the same as if the house was unimproved. Now if the house went up 150 by spending 100, or went up 60 by spending 100, you and your brother would also be sharing this profit or loss. If you don't want that to happen, you will need a different agreement. The advantage of the approach I'm suggesting is you just need one appraisal after your father dies. Not accounted for in this is that you lived (without paying rent) in your father's house for some time, and that you worked (without being paid) as a caregiver to your father for that time. Some families might think those two things balanced, others might feel you need to be compensated for caring for him, and others that you need to compensate the others for your benefit of living in the large house. Be sure to discuss this with your brother so that you agree in advance whether a plan is fair or not." }, { "docid": "123511", "title": "", "text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"" }, { "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": "332757", "title": "", "text": "\"Not really. It will mostly come down to his personality and if he takes it personally. Don't feel bad. If he doesn't have a necessary expertise that you don't, he's not the right partner for you. Don't delay. It would have been better for you to nip it at the very beginning, but oh well. In the conversation, you'll have to mention his inexperience at some point. Buuuuut, try to make it more about you than him. Don't have the majority of the sentences be \"\"**You're** not this\"\" or \"\"**You** can't this\"\". Instead, make it about you and frame the reasons as an internal force you're grappling with. One that you can't fully control but must follow. \"\"**I** have this vision\"\" and \"\"**I** have been soul searching and doing research and now realize that **I** need full creative control\"\". If you've had any disagreements on serious issues about this business, use them. Mention them and talk about how uncertain the market is. That you might have to take an extreme turn, pivot the business, and that you don't want to listen to anybody or be beholden to anybody. Say you're being selfish but that you want to do it now to avoid conflict in the future. Making the dynamic about you vs. a passionate irresistible drive that you must follow...rather than you vs. him should help a good deal. You want the business for yourself. You are correct in this desire. You can't hide that fact so don't cover up or lie about this point, but make the reasons not necessarily about him. Mention high profile cases like Facebook and Tesla and how they split friendships up.\"" }, { "docid": "461215", "title": "", "text": "I think you need a lesson on Banking 101. > I mean siphoning funds assuming that you're going to be running a HFT shop or prop trading or using models to predict when something is most profitable, which is beneficial to your wallet but not really to society. I am confused, maybe your logic will clarify this concept for me. Say, I have invested in a mutual fund which has done really well and I have made returns of over 120% in 15yrs. Is this considered stealing as well?? According to you it would be. Maybe others were more patriotic and invested their savings in Treasury bonds which probably earned them say 28% in the past 12 years. How is this different from someone working as prop shop trader (You should generalize it as a trader not just quants). Sometimes they take losses other times they make profits. Most just manage to make a living. If not they find another career (Which I think a cynical man like you ought to be doing too). If you truly understand the industry structure and believe in it, you will realize it's just another profession. If you're truly disgusted by this profession, maybe ask yourself why does society tolerate over priced attorneys, over priced doctors, high end real estate, expensive designer clothing stores.. many other examples to cite here. To bring things closer to your life in perspective, the $10 t-shirt you're wearing was probably prepared by people like my cousins in India who work for wages of $110 a month. Should I call you a thief for stealing from her?" }, { "docid": "13299", "title": "", "text": "\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"" }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "> I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. > Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. > The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. > A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. > Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. > Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "295031", "title": "", "text": "Do not use a stop loss order as a long-term investor. The arguments in favor of stop losses being presented by a few users here rely on a faulty premise, namely, that there is some kind of formula that will let you set your stop such that it won't trigger on day-to-day fluctuations but will trigger in time to protect you from a significant loss in a serious market downturn. No such formula exists. No matter where you set your stop, it is as likely to dump you from your investment just before it begins climbing again as it is to shield you from continued losses. Each time that happens, you will have sold low and bought high, incurring trading fees into the bargain. It is very unlikely that the losses you avoid in a bear market (remember, you still incur the loss up until your stop is hit; it's only the losses after that that you avoid) will make up the costs of false alarms. On top of that, once you have stopped out of your first investment choice, then what? Will you reinvest in some other stock or fund? If those investments didn't look good to you when you first set up your asset allocation, then why should they look any better now, just because your primary investment has dropped by some arbitrary[*] amount? Will you park the money in cash while you wait for prices to bottom out? The market bottom is only apparent in retrospect. There is no formula for calling it in real time. Perhaps stop loss orders have their uses in active trading strategies, or maybe they're just chrome that trading platforms use to attract customers. Either way, using them on long-term investments will just cost you money in the long run. Forget the fancy order types, and manage your risk through your asset allocation. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will get better performance, and you will spend less time worrying about your investments to boot. [*] Why are the stop levels recommended by the formulae invariably multiples of 5%? Do the market gods have a thing for round numbers?" }, { "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." }, { "docid": "9471", "title": "", "text": "Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways." }, { "docid": "467511", "title": "", "text": "\"Nothing wrong with the other answers, but here's a \"\"trick\"\" to hopefully make it totally transparent. Imagine that you're not the one implementing this business plan, but someone else is. Let's call this other person your asset manager. So on the first day, you give your asset manager $9. He takes this and generates $1 profit from it, recovering the $9 which he then reinvests to generate $1 profit every day. From your perspective, you just gave him $9. At the end of the year, he gives you $365 in addition to your original investment of $9 (in real life he'd take the fees of course, or perhaps he's been lending out the money he's been accumulating and taking the interest from that as pay for his services). So your return on investment is 365 / 9 * 100 % > 4000 %, as claimed by your source.\"" }, { "docid": "430498", "title": "", "text": "I am considering making my investment history publicly available online What is the benefit you are looking for by doing this? Just to establish that you are a successful investor, so in long run can predict things ... have tons of followers? If so yes. Go ahead. Updates to the portfolio would have to be near real-time than post facto else no one will believe you and it would be useless. are there any reasons (legal, personal, etc.) not to publicize my personal investment history legal, depends on country; I can't think any [check the agreement with your broker / depository] on how much can be displayed. i.e. they may forbid from revealing contract ref / or some other details. On Personal front, it depends who takes a liking to your stuff. Relatives: They know you are making huge profits and may want to borrow stuff ... or queue up to you requesting to make similar huge profits for them; only to realize when there is loss they blame you ... this can strain relationships. Friends: Although close friends may have a general idea, if you are too successful and it shows; it can have its own set of issues to deal with. Colleagues / Manager: If you are too successful, it may mean you may notionally be earning more than them ... they would start unconsciously monitoring your behaviour ... this guy spends all day in office researching for stocks and doesn't work. That way he knows how to pick good stock ... he is wasting company time. The same happens if you are loosing stock ... a unrelated bad day you are having maybe equated to loss in stocks. Depending on the job / roles, they may move you to different role as the perceived risk of you swindling goes up. Generally important work doesn't get assigned, as it would be assumed that if you are successful in investing, you may quite soon and start full time into it. Identify Theft: As mentioned by keshlam, to much data one can easily risk identity theft. Realize phone banking to get some routine stuff just asks for basic details [that are available on face book] and few recent debits / credits to the account. This will be easy see the trades you have done. None of us here are expert identity theifs. But the real one have tons of way t" }, { "docid": "185983", "title": "", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5." }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "120649", "title": "", "text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses." }, { "docid": "549270", "title": "", "text": "For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds." }, { "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": "402273", "title": "", "text": "You can see some IRS info on distinguishing a business from a hobby here. Nolo also has some info. The upshot is that you can only deduct losses if your activity is, in the judgement of the IRS, a for-profit endeavor. You don't have to make a profit right away, or make a profit every year, for it to be a for-profit endeavor, but you have to be able to convince the IRS that you're doing it in order to (eventually) make a profit, not just for fun. You can't just keep deducting the losses year after year if (as in the worst case you suggest) it never makes a profit and doesn't seem to have any chance of doing so." }, { "docid": "94202", "title": "", "text": "\"There are healthy people and there are sick people. Each are that way because of their genetics, behavior, and (somewhat) luck. To some extent health insurance is insurance, and covers that luck... But mostly the Affordable Care Act and healthCare.gov are about health care... It's a scheme to allocate burdens, not to insure against risk. Healthy people dont think this is fair. \"\"When I invest time at the gym, invest money and time on healthy food, invest in learning healthy habits... And someone else doesn't... Why should I have to pay for their heart replacement? The freerider chooses to risk heart disease while I foot their bill, I pay twice prevention for myself and a cure for him, while he increases the cost for us all. \"\" Genetics is a touchy subject, but... if someone has a hugely expensive heridatible disease... Should that person and their spouse bear the burdens of having and raising their kids? If they can't afford to do so, should the rest of society have to take money away from their own families to finance that family's reproduction?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "247486", "title": "", "text": "This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. The bold part is where you lose me. This absolutely exists with the exception of the loss insurance. It just requires a lot more than the general retail consumer investor has to contribute. Nobody wants to take on the responsibility of your money then split 50% of the gross proceeds of your $10,000 (or whatever nominal amount of money you're dealing with) investment and return it all to you after a year. And NO money manager will insure that the market won't decline. Hedge funds, PE Firms, VC Firms, Investment Partnerships, etc all basically run the way you're describing (again without your loss insurance). Everyone's money is pooled and investments are made. Everyone shares the spoils and everyone shares the losses. And to top it off, the people making investment decisions have their money invested in the fund. All of them have to pay rent and accountants and other costs associated with running the fund and that will eat in to the proceeds to some degree; because returns are calculated on net proceeds. With enough money you can buy yourself in to a hedge fund, for the rest of us there are ETFs and other extremely fee-reasonable investment options. And if you don't think the performance and preservation of assets under management is not an incentive to treat the money with care you're kidding yourself (your first bullet point). I'll add that aside from skewing the manager's risk tolerance toward guaranteed returns I doubt you would fair favorably over the long term compared to simply paying even an egregious 1% expense ratio on an ETF. If you look at the S&P performance for 10 or 20 or however many years, I'd venture that a couple good years of giving up half of your gains would have you screaming for your money back. The bad years would put the money manager out of business and the good years would squander your gains." } ]

[ { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "589607", "title": "", "text": "I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment.If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below)The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares?Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path.I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield.This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment. If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below) The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares? Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path. I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield. This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king" }, { "docid": "258911", "title": "", "text": "\"Although my kid just turned 5, he's learning the value of money now, which should help him in the future. First thing, teach him that you exchange money for goods and services. Let him see the bills, and explain what they're for (i.e. \"\"I pay ISP Co to give us Internet; that lets us watch Youtube and Netflix, as well as play games with Grandma on your GameStation\"\"). After a little while, they will see where it goes, and why. Then you have your automatic bills, such as mortgage payments. I make a habit of taking out the cash after I get paid, and my son comes with me to the bank where I deposit it again (I get paid monthly, so it's only one extra withdraw). He can physically see the money, and understand that if the stack is gone, it's gone. Now that he is understanding things cost money, he wants to make money himself. He volunteers to help clean up the kitchen and vacuum rooms in the house, usually without being asked. I give him a dollar or two for the simple chores like that. Things like cleaning his room or his own mess, he does not get paid for. He puts all his money into his piggy bank, and he has some goals in mind: a big fire truck, a police helicopter, a pool, a monster truck, a boat. Remember he's only 5. He has his goals, and we have the money he's been saving up. We calculate how many times he needs to vacuum the living room, or clean up dishes, to get there, and he realizes it takes a long time. He looks for other ways to make money around the house, and we come up with solutions together. I am hoping in a year or two that I can show him my investments and get him to understand why they make or lose money. I want to get him in to the habit of investing a little bit every few months, then every month, to help his income grow, even if he can't touch the money quite yet.\"" }, { "docid": "360816", "title": "", "text": "As per JohnFx's comment above, consider whether it's worth more to you to just write this off. If not, if you feel that your son will be able to consider this without taking it personally, or you're willing to risk that relationship, then talk to him about it. Lay out the reasons why you need the money. If there are other children, it might be a simple matter of fairness to them. Based on your idea of deducting the money from his inheritance, I assume that the value you're docking from his inheritance will go somewhere else. Offer alternatives. You say that you can't take any money from him now, but letting him know that he can pay you in the future in lieu of loss of inheritance might be worthwhile. Be prepared with an idea of what to suggest if he says he can pay you some amount of money. Figure out what might be an acceptable payment plan and how to handle it if, at some point, he can't make payments for a time. This is a potentially ugly situation, and I can't guarantee that it will turn out better, but the more you prepare for the questions he's going to ask, the better off you're going to be." }, { "docid": "409959", "title": "", "text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"" }, { "docid": "171189", "title": "", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"" }, { "docid": "263361", "title": "", "text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E." }, { "docid": "478330", "title": "", "text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "517323", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares." }, { "docid": "113800", "title": "", "text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"" }, { "docid": "392660", "title": "", "text": "You currently have 5400€ between you and 2600€ expenses leaving you 2800€. You currently keep 1900€ and she keeps 900€ at the end of each month splitting 68/32. If you marry and have a child, your combined income will go down to 4900€ while your expenses will increase by 300€ to 2900€ leaving 2000€. You could continue to split 68/32 leaving you 1360€ and her 640€. If you use this split you will lose 540€ and she will lose 260€. That's a 28% loss for you and a 28% loss for her from your end of month take home. So far it sounds reasonably fair. What about the future? For each raise, the person getting the raise keeps 66% of their raises. If you get the majority of the raises, you keep the majority of the benefit, but both benefit from the increase. Any future increases in expenses can be split as negotiated based on who benefits from those increases. That's basically what you are doing now considering that adding a child will cost a lot of her time, not just your money." }, { "docid": "37727", "title": "", "text": "If you break down the math it comes out to a loss to the IRS. Does every Fortune 500 store profits over seas? How much does Comcast store? Because they pay 33% in taxes. Paying 15 comes to a loss for the IRS. These companies are not improving on anything anywhere. Record profits and yet it's not invested back anywhere that helps the citizens. Why would it be invested after they have more money? Apple didn't when they made 30b, 40b, 50b 60b now almost 70b profit after taxes. Why would they if they make 80b?" }, { "docid": "268261", "title": "", "text": "At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low. For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question. Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up. So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement. A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap. Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it. They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses. That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require. That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly. If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible." }, { "docid": "185983", "title": "", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5." }, { "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": "420118", "title": "", "text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"" }, { "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": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "381757", "title": "", "text": "\"You are conflating two different types of risk here. First, you want to invest money, and presumably you're not looking at the \"\"lowest risk, lowest returns\"\" end of the spectrum. This is an inherently risky activity. Second, you are in a principal-agent relationship with your advisor, and are exposed to the risk of your advisor not maximizing your profits. A lot has been written on principal-agent theory, and while incentive schemes exist, there is no optimal solution. In your case, you hope that your agent will start maximizing your profits if they are 100% correlated with his profits. While this idea is true (at least according to standard economic theory, you could find exceptions in behavioral economics and in reality), it also forces the agent to participate in the first risk. From the point of view of the agent, this does not make sense. He is looking to render services and receive income for it. An agent with integrity is certainly prepared to carry the risk of his own incompetence, just like Apple is prepared to replace your iPhone should it not start one day. But the agent is not prepared to carry additional risks such as the market risk, and should not be compelled to do so. It is your risk, a risk you personally take by deciding to play the investment gamble, and you cannot transfer it to somebody else. Of course, what makes the situation here more difficult than the iPhone example is that market-driven losses cannot be easily distinguished from incompetent-agent losses. So, there is no setup in which you carry the market risk only and your agent carries the incompetence risk only. But as much as you want a solution in which the agent carries all risk, you probably won't find an agent willing to sign such a contract. So you have to simply accept that both the market risk and the incompetence risk are inherent to being an investor. You can try to mitigate your own incompetence by having an advisor invest for you, but then you have to accept the risk of his incompetence. There is no way to depress the total incompetence risk to zero.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "135411", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"" }, { "docid": "260043", "title": "", "text": "I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation." }, { "docid": "295707", "title": "", "text": "\"Why must terms must be mutually exclusive? This (false) dichotomy is what seems to cause the most debate. It is the SINGLE EVENT OUTCOME that defines gambling. Gambling will involve an aleatory contract. That is, the outcome is specifically tied to a single event that determines profit/loss. This could be the outcome of a race or the roll of a dice, but should involve chance. This is why gambling is often in the context of a game, but I would make the argument that some investment tools fall into this category - The price of a stock at a certain date, for example. This may also be called \"\"betting\"\", which opens up a whole other discussion. Investing has no such implication, and as such it is the broader term. Investing is to put something (money) to work to return a profit. Some forms of gambling could fall under this umbrella. Some would say that is a \"\"bad investment\"\" and even if they are right, it may still be the desire and intent of the investor to make a profit. Not all gambling falls under investing. You can gamble for pleasure. The profit/loss of most investments are not contractually tied to a specific event or outcome (e.g. the price of a stock over 10 years is the result of many events affecting its market value). Such an investment would not be considered gambling.\"" }, { "docid": "467511", "title": "", "text": "\"Nothing wrong with the other answers, but here's a \"\"trick\"\" to hopefully make it totally transparent. Imagine that you're not the one implementing this business plan, but someone else is. Let's call this other person your asset manager. So on the first day, you give your asset manager $9. He takes this and generates $1 profit from it, recovering the $9 which he then reinvests to generate $1 profit every day. From your perspective, you just gave him $9. At the end of the year, he gives you $365 in addition to your original investment of $9 (in real life he'd take the fees of course, or perhaps he's been lending out the money he's been accumulating and taking the interest from that as pay for his services). So your return on investment is 365 / 9 * 100 % > 4000 %, as claimed by your source.\"" }, { "docid": "222049", "title": "", "text": "Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed." }, { "docid": "120649", "title": "", "text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses." }, { "docid": "366852", "title": "", "text": "\">> Darling, if you are not a fan of Hillary (and the current DNC?), than why are you against Trump, who is not even career GOP politician? > I have already addressed this stupid idea that someone HAS to like one or the other. Are you serious? Why would you vote for someone you don't like? I would never vote for someone I don't like! I can't believe I have to explain that to you. Further, why would you even vote for a Party you don't like? Another question: **I assume you did not vote for Trump. Is it because you did not like Trump?** Do you get why I am asked this question? > Trump has no idea what he's doing. Absolutely not true and total fake news. Let's start with Hillary, who has been in politics for 30 years and even secretary of state: does she know how to handle e-mail(s)? Does she know how to handle Russia? Does she know how to handle Benghazi? Can you tell me of one \"\"accomplishment\"\" by Hillary in her long service? Back to Trump: he's very smart, which is mostly to choose the right people to do the work for him. He's correct with his agenda: against TPP, against illegal aliens, against terrorist supporting countries, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, bringing jobs back to America, replacing the horrendous ObamaCare (AKA \"\"affordable\"\" Care Act), etc. **What action by Trump so far show that he's not smart?** Give me one example, please.\"" }, { "docid": "392660", "title": "", "text": "You currently have 5400€ between you and 2600€ expenses leaving you 2800€. You currently keep 1900€ and she keeps 900€ at the end of each month splitting 68/32. If you marry and have a child, your combined income will go down to 4900€ while your expenses will increase by 300€ to 2900€ leaving 2000€. You could continue to split 68/32 leaving you 1360€ and her 640€. If you use this split you will lose 540€ and she will lose 260€. That's a 28% loss for you and a 28% loss for her from your end of month take home. So far it sounds reasonably fair. What about the future? For each raise, the person getting the raise keeps 66% of their raises. If you get the majority of the raises, you keep the majority of the benefit, but both benefit from the increase. Any future increases in expenses can be split as negotiated based on who benefits from those increases. That's basically what you are doing now considering that adding a child will cost a lot of her time, not just your money." }, { "docid": "360816", "title": "", "text": "As per JohnFx's comment above, consider whether it's worth more to you to just write this off. If not, if you feel that your son will be able to consider this without taking it personally, or you're willing to risk that relationship, then talk to him about it. Lay out the reasons why you need the money. If there are other children, it might be a simple matter of fairness to them. Based on your idea of deducting the money from his inheritance, I assume that the value you're docking from his inheritance will go somewhere else. Offer alternatives. You say that you can't take any money from him now, but letting him know that he can pay you in the future in lieu of loss of inheritance might be worthwhile. Be prepared with an idea of what to suggest if he says he can pay you some amount of money. Figure out what might be an acceptable payment plan and how to handle it if, at some point, he can't make payments for a time. This is a potentially ugly situation, and I can't guarantee that it will turn out better, but the more you prepare for the questions he's going to ask, the better off you're going to be." }, { "docid": "549270", "title": "", "text": "For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds." }, { "docid": "184310", "title": "", "text": "\"If you or they feel uneasy about you simply paying more rent than them for equal usage, you can work out an agreement where they \"\"pay\"\" in other ways. For example, I once lived with someone that made about double what I did, and so he paid more rent than I did. In exchange, I was responsible for cleaning the kitchen. If your roommates hate cleaning then you could substitute something like running errands, cooking, or looking after plants/landscaping. If they have some specialized skills then they might be able to provide those instead (car maintenance, financial management, etc.). Of course you'll want to agree ahead of time on what the conditions of satisfaction for the task are, such as how often the kitchen will have to be cleaned and what the definition of \"\"clean\"\" is. You also can't be a jerk and make their job extra hard, such as by completely trashing the kitchen every night. Obviously it will depend on the temperament of your roommates whether or not they'll be happy with this or feel insulted being \"\"the help\"\". It worked for us because it was a task he hated and one I didn't mind, and it kept me from feeling like I was mooching off him. I would feel them out when you propose a possible rent and utilities split. If they feel like it's an unfair burden on you, but they can't afford more, then you could suggest this as a way for everyone to contribute equally. Whatever you decide to do, don't hold it over their heads that you pay more. Agree on something that everyone feels is fair, whatever that is. If you want a concession due to paying more (such as you get the garage, get to pick the art on the walls, whatever), then agree to that up front. Then accept that you've made a fair deal and they don't owe you anything beyond what you've all agreed to. It's awful to feel like you live in someone else's home and that you are getting into ever deeper debt with a close friend or significant other, and it will breed resentment. If you can't do that, then don't share an apartment with them at all. The most important thing is that everyone feels it's fair, regardless of the numbers. If you cannot get to that agreement through dollars alone, you can have them contribute to the home in other ways, such as cleaning, cooking, or performing maintenance. Just make sure that everyone truly does feel it's fair and that you are all equals.\"" }, { "docid": "61518", "title": "", "text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"" }, { "docid": "94202", "title": "", "text": "\"There are healthy people and there are sick people. Each are that way because of their genetics, behavior, and (somewhat) luck. To some extent health insurance is insurance, and covers that luck... But mostly the Affordable Care Act and healthCare.gov are about health care... It's a scheme to allocate burdens, not to insure against risk. Healthy people dont think this is fair. \"\"When I invest time at the gym, invest money and time on healthy food, invest in learning healthy habits... And someone else doesn't... Why should I have to pay for their heart replacement? The freerider chooses to risk heart disease while I foot their bill, I pay twice prevention for myself and a cure for him, while he increases the cost for us all. \"\" Genetics is a touchy subject, but... if someone has a hugely expensive heridatible disease... Should that person and their spouse bear the burdens of having and raising their kids? If they can't afford to do so, should the rest of society have to take money away from their own families to finance that family's reproduction?\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "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." }, { "docid": "170594", "title": "", "text": "You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing." }, { "docid": "342865", "title": "", "text": "\"For some reason can't transfer it directly to his account overseas (something to do with security codes, authorized payees and expired cards). Don't become someone's financial intermediary. Find out exactly why he can't transfer the money himself, and then if you want to help him, solve that problem for him. Helping him fix his issue with his expired card, or whatever the real problem is, would be a good thing to do. Allowing him to involve you in the transaction, would be a bad thing to do. Possible problems which might be caused by becoming directly involved in the transaction: -The relative is being scammed themselves, and doesn't realize it / doesn't realize the risks, and either wants you to take the risk, or simply thinks there is no risk but needs administrative help. -The person contacting you is not the relative - perhaps they are faking that person's identity, and are using your trust to defraud you. -The person is committing some form of fraud, money laundering, or worse, and is directly trying to defraud you in order to keep their hands clean. -The transaction may be perfectly legal, but is considered taxable in one or more countries. By getting involved, you might face tax filing obligations, or even tax payment obligations. -The transaction may be perfectly legal and legitimate, but might accidentally get picked up as potential fraud by a financial monitoring system, causing the funds to be held, and your account to be flagged for further investigation, creating headaches for you until it becomes resolved. There are possibly other ways that this can go awry, but these are the biggest possibilities I can think of. The only possible 'good' outcome here is that everything goes smoothly, and it works exactly as well as if your relative's \"\"administrative problems\"\" were solved first, and the money went through his own account. Handwaving about why your account is needed and his is faulty is a big red flag. If it is truly just an administrative issue on his end, help him fix that issue instead.\"" }, { "docid": "59817", "title": "", "text": "I don't get why someone in his situation doesn't just hire a small team of financial planners, ask them to make the majority of their money as safe as possible, and then receive an allowance you can burn worry free every month. The amount of capital he's earned, his money could be working for him to generate all the disposable income one needs. I guess it still comes back to discipline and habits, if the allowance isn't giving him enough to buy a new fancy car every month he'll probably start to dip into his investments. I think what is really going to kill Mayweather's fortunes, is his gambling habit. He sinks hundreds of thousands of dollars on bets routinely. Eventually that will catch up with him." }, { "docid": "232425", "title": "", "text": "Did he say why he wants double your asking price? Did you explain to him how you came up with the offer you made? Sometimes exploring interests (why people make their decisions) is more helpful than bargaining over positions. If you understand why he wants double your offer (and he understands why you're offering a lower price) you might get closer to an agreement. Another option is to defer to a disinterested third-party who will pick a valuation for the company, and you can agree to abide by their decision (and pick a payout schedule if necessary) Think about what you'll do if you can't come to an agreement: is walking away from the business an option and going out on your own? What would happen to him if you simply walk away? It might be in his best interest to negotiate. Or will you reluctantly pay his asking price? Or can you sell the business to him? One option when partners need to split up is to have one of them set a value for the company, and the other decides if he wants to be the buyer or seller. (It's like the trick with kids where one cuts the cake and the other selects which slice he wants.) Maybe you can come up with a fair way of valuing the company. A lawyer will be needed to draw it all up, but you can agree on the framework of the deal ahead of time and save some money and stress. Last thought: when a win-win agreement isn't possible, sometimes the next best compromise is where everyone feels like he got equally screwed. That's ok, too." } ]

[ { "docid": "447619", "title": "", "text": "\"Why is nobody providing a service that is basically: Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Because they can already make lots of money by just charging people an unconditional fee and not having to cover their losses. Why take on the risk of having to cover your losses when they can just take a percentage of your assets and stick you with any losses? In addition, as Charles E. Grant mentioned in a comment on another answer, if a person has both sufficient capital to cover your losses and sufficient confidence in their investing acumen that they don't think they will have to do so, they have little need for your money. Rather than take half the gains on your money, they will invest their own money (they must have some, or else they can't guarantee your losses) and take all the gains. Your scheme would only be plausible as a partnership between a person with investing skills but little capital, and another person with ample capital and less skill. In that case, the investment whiz could genuinely benefit from access to the bankroller's capital. As quid noted in chat, this does exist in the form of ad-hoc private equity arrangements between individuals. However, such a setup is unlikely to exist as an \"\"off-the-shelf product\"\" marketed at retail investors, because financial institutions have more capital than any individual retail investor -- and, more generally, anyone with sufficient skill to pull this off will (at least in theory) quickly accumulate enough capital that they can negotiate a less risky payment plan.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "84951", "title": "", "text": "This isn't the movies. Killing someone's family to pressure them into DOING something for you is one thing, but that tactic doesn't work when you're trying to get someone to give you something they don't have. Let's say they kill his daughter or brother or parents, what then? How is he going to magically raise $3M? Go to a bank? Ask a friend? Tell the police? (btw, I find it interesting that his partner in that company was a police chief). It's not like he had the money but was just hiding it either. He simply had no way of paying, and they knew it, they probably worked with him for a while to get paid back and he couldn't get it done (maybe even tried gambling as the last option). Some other loan shark sure as hell isn't going to give you a loan to cover the loan you already can't pay back. They basically got fed up and decided to punish him by taking his life. Keep in mind him being killed bc of debt is purely my suspicion. It could've just been some random murder, Phili isn't the safest of places." }, { "docid": "342865", "title": "", "text": "\"For some reason can't transfer it directly to his account overseas (something to do with security codes, authorized payees and expired cards). Don't become someone's financial intermediary. Find out exactly why he can't transfer the money himself, and then if you want to help him, solve that problem for him. Helping him fix his issue with his expired card, or whatever the real problem is, would be a good thing to do. Allowing him to involve you in the transaction, would be a bad thing to do. Possible problems which might be caused by becoming directly involved in the transaction: -The relative is being scammed themselves, and doesn't realize it / doesn't realize the risks, and either wants you to take the risk, or simply thinks there is no risk but needs administrative help. -The person contacting you is not the relative - perhaps they are faking that person's identity, and are using your trust to defraud you. -The person is committing some form of fraud, money laundering, or worse, and is directly trying to defraud you in order to keep their hands clean. -The transaction may be perfectly legal, but is considered taxable in one or more countries. By getting involved, you might face tax filing obligations, or even tax payment obligations. -The transaction may be perfectly legal and legitimate, but might accidentally get picked up as potential fraud by a financial monitoring system, causing the funds to be held, and your account to be flagged for further investigation, creating headaches for you until it becomes resolved. There are possibly other ways that this can go awry, but these are the biggest possibilities I can think of. The only possible 'good' outcome here is that everything goes smoothly, and it works exactly as well as if your relative's \"\"administrative problems\"\" were solved first, and the money went through his own account. Handwaving about why your account is needed and his is faulty is a big red flag. If it is truly just an administrative issue on his end, help him fix that issue instead.\"" }, { "docid": "410431", "title": "", "text": "Thinking of personal residence as investment is how we got the bubble and crash in housing prices, and the Great Recession. There is no guarantee that a house will appreciate, or even retain value. It's also an extremely illiquid item; selling it, especially if you're seeking a profit, can take a year or more. ' Housing is not guaranteed to appreciate constantly, or at all. Tastes change and renovations rarely pay for themselves. Things wear out and have costs. Neighborhoods change in popularity. Without rental income and the ability to write off some of the costs as business expense, it isn't clear the tax advantage closes that gap, especislly as the advantage is limited to the taxes upon your mortgage interest (by deducting that from AGI). If this is the flavor of speculation you want to engage in, fine, but I've seen people screw themselves over this way and wind up forced to sell a house for a loss. By all means hope your home will be profitable, count it as part of your net wealth... but generally Lynch is wrong here, or at best oversimplified. A house can be an investment (or perhaps more accurately a business), or your home, but -- unless you're renting out the other half of a duplex,which splits the difference -- trying to treat it as both is dangerous accounting." }, { "docid": "94202", "title": "", "text": "\"There are healthy people and there are sick people. Each are that way because of their genetics, behavior, and (somewhat) luck. To some extent health insurance is insurance, and covers that luck... But mostly the Affordable Care Act and healthCare.gov are about health care... It's a scheme to allocate burdens, not to insure against risk. Healthy people dont think this is fair. \"\"When I invest time at the gym, invest money and time on healthy food, invest in learning healthy habits... And someone else doesn't... Why should I have to pay for their heart replacement? The freerider chooses to risk heart disease while I foot their bill, I pay twice prevention for myself and a cure for him, while he increases the cost for us all. \"\" Genetics is a touchy subject, but... if someone has a hugely expensive heridatible disease... Should that person and their spouse bear the burdens of having and raising their kids? If they can't afford to do so, should the rest of society have to take money away from their own families to finance that family's reproduction?\"" }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "37727", "title": "", "text": "If you break down the math it comes out to a loss to the IRS. Does every Fortune 500 store profits over seas? How much does Comcast store? Because they pay 33% in taxes. Paying 15 comes to a loss for the IRS. These companies are not improving on anything anywhere. Record profits and yet it's not invested back anywhere that helps the citizens. Why would it be invested after they have more money? Apple didn't when they made 30b, 40b, 50b 60b now almost 70b profit after taxes. Why would they if they make 80b?" }, { "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": "99151", "title": "", "text": "If your father is still able to make financial decisions and sign contracts, I see a better option. Have your father borrow against his equity to finance the renovation. Example: the house is worth 400 now. He can borrow 100 against that. He spends it on the addition, making the house worth 500, with the same 400 of equity as before. (In some cases, spending 100 might add 150 to the house value, but let's assume here the increase is just what was spent.) When he dies, the mortgage has to be repaid. If he has no other money (that the two of you would otherwise split) then the mortgage has to be repaid by the two of you putting in cash. So you pay your brother 250 (half the new total value of the house) but he gives 50 of that to the bank for the mortgage. You also give 50 of your own money to the bank for the mortgage. Net result: your brother has 200 (the same as if he had inherited half the unimproved house), and you have a 500 house after paying out 300. Your gain is also the same as if the house was unimproved. Now if the house went up 150 by spending 100, or went up 60 by spending 100, you and your brother would also be sharing this profit or loss. If you don't want that to happen, you will need a different agreement. The advantage of the approach I'm suggesting is you just need one appraisal after your father dies. Not accounted for in this is that you lived (without paying rent) in your father's house for some time, and that you worked (without being paid) as a caregiver to your father for that time. Some families might think those two things balanced, others might feel you need to be compensated for caring for him, and others that you need to compensate the others for your benefit of living in the large house. Be sure to discuss this with your brother so that you agree in advance whether a plan is fair or not." }, { "docid": "366852", "title": "", "text": "\">> Darling, if you are not a fan of Hillary (and the current DNC?), than why are you against Trump, who is not even career GOP politician? > I have already addressed this stupid idea that someone HAS to like one or the other. Are you serious? Why would you vote for someone you don't like? I would never vote for someone I don't like! I can't believe I have to explain that to you. Further, why would you even vote for a Party you don't like? Another question: **I assume you did not vote for Trump. Is it because you did not like Trump?** Do you get why I am asked this question? > Trump has no idea what he's doing. Absolutely not true and total fake news. Let's start with Hillary, who has been in politics for 30 years and even secretary of state: does she know how to handle e-mail(s)? Does she know how to handle Russia? Does she know how to handle Benghazi? Can you tell me of one \"\"accomplishment\"\" by Hillary in her long service? Back to Trump: he's very smart, which is mostly to choose the right people to do the work for him. He's correct with his agenda: against TPP, against illegal aliens, against terrorist supporting countries, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, bringing jobs back to America, replacing the horrendous ObamaCare (AKA \"\"affordable\"\" Care Act), etc. **What action by Trump so far show that he's not smart?** Give me one example, please.\"" }, { "docid": "461215", "title": "", "text": "I think you need a lesson on Banking 101. > I mean siphoning funds assuming that you're going to be running a HFT shop or prop trading or using models to predict when something is most profitable, which is beneficial to your wallet but not really to society. I am confused, maybe your logic will clarify this concept for me. Say, I have invested in a mutual fund which has done really well and I have made returns of over 120% in 15yrs. Is this considered stealing as well?? According to you it would be. Maybe others were more patriotic and invested their savings in Treasury bonds which probably earned them say 28% in the past 12 years. How is this different from someone working as prop shop trader (You should generalize it as a trader not just quants). Sometimes they take losses other times they make profits. Most just manage to make a living. If not they find another career (Which I think a cynical man like you ought to be doing too). If you truly understand the industry structure and believe in it, you will realize it's just another profession. If you're truly disgusted by this profession, maybe ask yourself why does society tolerate over priced attorneys, over priced doctors, high end real estate, expensive designer clothing stores.. many other examples to cite here. To bring things closer to your life in perspective, the $10 t-shirt you're wearing was probably prepared by people like my cousins in India who work for wages of $110 a month. Should I call you a thief for stealing from her?" }, { "docid": "460196", "title": "", "text": "You are right, it is a Ponzi scheme unless it pays all of the profits as dividends. Here's why: today's millenials are saving a lot less, and instead they choose to be spenders. It's just that their mentality is different. If the trend continues there will be more spenders and less savers. That means that in 20 years from now, a company might sell more and make more profits, but because there are less investors on the market it will worth less (judging by supply and demand this has to be true). Doesn't that seem like a disconnect to you guys? Doesn't that just prove that all those profits are not really yours, but instead you're just sitting on the side making bets about them? If I own a company from the point where it goes public and while the value goes up I hold on to it for 50 years. Let's say for 45 years it made tons of profits but never paid a cent in dividend, and then in 5 years it goes out of business. What happened to all the profits they made throughout the 45 years? If you owned a restaurant that made a profit for 45 years and then went bankrupt you are fine, you took your profits every year because why on earth would you reinvest 100% of the profit forever? But what if you could sell 49.9% of that restaurant on the stock market, get all of that IPO money and still keep all of the profits while claiming that you reinvest it forever? That's exactly what they do! They just buy expensive things for personal use, from fancy cars to private jets, they just write it down as an investment and you can't see what the money was spent on because you are not a majority stakeholder, you have no power. It was not like this forever, companies used to pay all of their profits in dividends and be valued according to that. Not anymore. Now they are just in it for the growth, it will keep growing as long as people keep buying into it, and that's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme." }, { "docid": "487861", "title": "", "text": "You can't force a horse to eat carrots. You have to make him hungry... It's good that you're ready to start saving. The hardest part about building wealth is that most people live in denial. They think a bigger hat is wealth. That said, you need to get your husband excited about the idea of saving. If you're capable of sparking a little passion in him for saving then you'll see your wealth grow almost over night. So, how do you make someone excited about something as boring as saving? Great question. If you find a way, write a book. Honestly, I think it's different for everyone. For me it was like someone turned on a light. I was blind but then I saw. If he is a reader then I would suggest the following books in this order. If he makes it through those and has any argument at all against saving then write a book about him haha. Now I want to be clear, the other two answers above mine were also spot on. If you can't get him passionate about it then you need to take the initiative and start doing it yourself. I can't stress enough though that you both need to be engaged in order to do it quickly and efficiently. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "89190", "title": "", "text": "\"I love it - it was the policies under Bush (as much as one can squarely place blame on the president) that results in the crash that nearly destroyed him - the same president he claims he got elected... and yet here were are and he is claiming if Obama is re-elected that he might have to fire people because of his policies (as much as he claims we can squarely place blame on the president) would lead to another loss for his company, that is after they enjoyed this period of recovery that allows him to continue building his massive house o' opulence. Wonderful business sense, \"\"Pay more in taxes?? FUCK those profits altogether! I'll shut down the company and HA HA! That'll show them! Because no one else will swoop in and pick up my massively profitable vacation scam business... you know why? Because taxes - that's why! And socialism! and communism!.... COMMULISM!\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "288848", "title": "", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"" }, { "docid": "37146", "title": "", "text": "Your adviser cannot advise you if you don't tell him the whole picture. You don't have to invest everything with the adviser, you can just say that you have the cash allocation portion already invested elsewhere, and he can consider your portfolio based on that information. He works for you and you pay him for this work, why would you want him to provide a result that you know is worthless, because you didn't tell him what he needs to know?" }, { "docid": "170594", "title": "", "text": "You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing." }, { "docid": "222049", "title": "", "text": "Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed." }, { "docid": "409959", "title": "", "text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"" }, { "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": "566573", "title": "", "text": "The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons)." } ]

[ { "docid": "410431", "title": "", "text": "Thinking of personal residence as investment is how we got the bubble and crash in housing prices, and the Great Recession. There is no guarantee that a house will appreciate, or even retain value. It's also an extremely illiquid item; selling it, especially if you're seeking a profit, can take a year or more. ' Housing is not guaranteed to appreciate constantly, or at all. Tastes change and renovations rarely pay for themselves. Things wear out and have costs. Neighborhoods change in popularity. Without rental income and the ability to write off some of the costs as business expense, it isn't clear the tax advantage closes that gap, especislly as the advantage is limited to the taxes upon your mortgage interest (by deducting that from AGI). If this is the flavor of speculation you want to engage in, fine, but I've seen people screw themselves over this way and wind up forced to sell a house for a loss. By all means hope your home will be profitable, count it as part of your net wealth... but generally Lynch is wrong here, or at best oversimplified. A house can be an investment (or perhaps more accurately a business), or your home, but -- unless you're renting out the other half of a duplex,which splits the difference -- trying to treat it as both is dangerous accounting." }, { "docid": "598596", "title": "", "text": "In most jurisdictions, you want to split the transactions. Why? Because you want to report capital gains on your investment income, and this will almost always be taxed at a lower rate than employment income. See Wikipedia's article for more information about capital gains. In Canada, you pay tax on 50% of your realized capital gains. There are also ways to shelter your gains from tax; in Canada, TFSA, in the US, I believe these are 'roth' accounts. I actually think you have to split the transactions, at least in Canada and the U.S., though I'm not absolutely sure. Regardless, you want to do so if you plan on making money with your investments. If you plan on making a loss, please contact me as I'm happy to accept the money you are planning on throwing away." }, { "docid": "232425", "title": "", "text": "Did he say why he wants double your asking price? Did you explain to him how you came up with the offer you made? Sometimes exploring interests (why people make their decisions) is more helpful than bargaining over positions. If you understand why he wants double your offer (and he understands why you're offering a lower price) you might get closer to an agreement. Another option is to defer to a disinterested third-party who will pick a valuation for the company, and you can agree to abide by their decision (and pick a payout schedule if necessary) Think about what you'll do if you can't come to an agreement: is walking away from the business an option and going out on your own? What would happen to him if you simply walk away? It might be in his best interest to negotiate. Or will you reluctantly pay his asking price? Or can you sell the business to him? One option when partners need to split up is to have one of them set a value for the company, and the other decides if he wants to be the buyer or seller. (It's like the trick with kids where one cuts the cake and the other selects which slice he wants.) Maybe you can come up with a fair way of valuing the company. A lawyer will be needed to draw it all up, but you can agree on the framework of the deal ahead of time and save some money and stress. Last thought: when a win-win agreement isn't possible, sometimes the next best compromise is where everyone feels like he got equally screwed. That's ok, too." }, { "docid": "113800", "title": "", "text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"" }, { "docid": "268261", "title": "", "text": "At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low. For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question. Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up. So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement. A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap. Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it. They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses. That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require. That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly. If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible." }, { "docid": "272525", "title": "", "text": "Because retirement account usually are tax effective vehicles - meaning you will pay less tax on any profits from your investments in a retirement account than you would outside. For example, in my country Australia, for someone on say $60,000 per annum, if you make $10,000 profits on your investments that year you will end up paying 34.5% tax (or $3,450) on that $10,000 profits. If you made the same profits in a retirement account (superannuation fund) you would have only paid 15% tax (or $1,500) on the $10,000 profit. That's less than half the tax. And if you are on a higher income the savings would be even greater. The reason why you can't take the money out of a retirement account is purely because the aim is to build up the funds for your retirement, and not take it out at any time you want. You are given the incentive to pay less tax on any investment profits in order for you to save and grow your funds so that you might have a more comfortable retirement (a time when you might not be able to work any more for your money)." }, { "docid": "135411", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"" }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "13299", "title": "", "text": "\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"" }, { "docid": "120649", "title": "", "text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses." }, { "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." }, { "docid": "511559", "title": "", "text": "\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"" }, { "docid": "123511", "title": "", "text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"" }, { "docid": "37146", "title": "", "text": "Your adviser cannot advise you if you don't tell him the whole picture. You don't have to invest everything with the adviser, you can just say that you have the cash allocation portion already invested elsewhere, and he can consider your portfolio based on that information. He works for you and you pay him for this work, why would you want him to provide a result that you know is worthless, because you didn't tell him what he needs to know?" }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "391323", "title": "", "text": "You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way. In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest) A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder. THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money). Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business? In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor') You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising? Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys.. THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings? an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well. For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission." }, { "docid": "260043", "title": "", "text": "I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation." }, { "docid": "59817", "title": "", "text": "I don't get why someone in his situation doesn't just hire a small team of financial planners, ask them to make the majority of their money as safe as possible, and then receive an allowance you can burn worry free every month. The amount of capital he's earned, his money could be working for him to generate all the disposable income one needs. I guess it still comes back to discipline and habits, if the allowance isn't giving him enough to buy a new fancy car every month he'll probably start to dip into his investments. I think what is really going to kill Mayweather's fortunes, is his gambling habit. He sinks hundreds of thousands of dollars on bets routinely. Eventually that will catch up with him." } ]

[ { "docid": "410166", "title": "", "text": "\"For one thing fund managers, even fund management companies, own less money than their clients put together. On the whole they simply cannot underwrite 50% of the potential losses of the funds they manage, and an offer to do so would be completely unsecured. Warren Buffet owns about 1/3 of Berkshire Hathaway, so I suppose maybe he could do it if he wanted to, and I won't guess why he prefers his own business model (investing in the fund he manages, or used to manage) over the one you propose for him (keeping his money in something so secure he could use it to cover arbitrary losses on B-H). Buffett and his investors have always felt that he has sufficient incentive to see B-H do well, and it's not clear that your scheme would provide him any useful further incentive. You say that the details are immaterial. Supposing instead of 50% it was 0.0001%, one part in a million. Then it would be completely plausible for a fund manager to offer this: \"\"invest 50 million, lose it all, and I'll buy dinner to apologise\"\". But would you be as attracted to it as you would be to 50%? Then the details are material. Actually a fund manager could do it by taking your money, putting 50% into the fund and 50% into a cash account. If you make money on the fund, you only make half as much as if you'd been fully invested, so half your profit has been \"\"taken\"\" when you get back the fund value + cash. If you lose money on the fund, pay you back 50% of your losses using the cash. Worst case scenario[*], the fund is completely wiped out but you still get back 50% of your initial investment. The combined fund+cash investment vehicle has covered exactly half your losses and it subtracts exactly half your profit. The manager has offered the terms you asked for (-50% leverage) but still doesn't have skin the game. Your proposed terms do not provide the incentive you expect. Why don't fund managers offer this? Because with a few exceptions 50% is an absurd amount for an investment fund to keep in cash, and nobody would buy it. If you want to use cash for that level of inverse leverage you call the bank, open an account, and keep the interest for yourself. You don't expect your managed fund to do it. Furthermore, supposing the manager did invest 100% of your subscription in the fund and cover the risk with their own capital, that means the only place they actually make any profit is the return on a risk that they take with their capital on the fund's wins/losses. You've given them no incentive to invest your money as well as their own: they might as well just put their capital in the fund and let you keep your money. They're better off without you since there's less paperwork, and they can invest whatever they like instead of carefully matching whatever money you send them. If you think they can make better picks than you, and you want them to do so on your behalf, then you need to pay them for the privilege. Riding their coattails for free is not a service they have any reason to offer you. It turns out that you cannot force someone to expose themselves to a particular risk other than by agreeing that they will expose themselves to that risk and then closely monitoring their investment portfolio. Otherwise they can find ways to insure/hedge the risk they're required to take on. If it's on their books but cancelled by something else then they aren't really exposed. So to provide incentive what we normally want is what Buffett does, which is for the fund manager to be invested in the fund to keep them keen, and to draw a salary in return for letting you in[**]. Their investment cannot precisely match yours because the fund manager's capital doesn't precisely match your capital. It doesn't cover your losses because it's in the same fund, so if your money vanishes the fund manager loses too and has nothing to cover you with. But it does provide the incentive. [*] All right, I admit it, worst case scenario there's a total banking collapse, end of civilization as we know it, and the cash account defaults. But then even in your proposed scheme it's possible that whatever assets the fund manager was using as security could fail to materialise. [**] So why, you might ask, do individual fund managers get bonuses in return for meeting fixed targets instead of only being part-paid in shares in their own fund whose value they can then maximise? I honestly don't know, but I suspect \"\"lots of reasons\"\". Probably the psychology of rewarding them for performance in a way that compares with other executive posts or professions they might take up instead of fund management. Probably the benefit to the fund itself, which wants to attract more clients, of beating certain benchmarks. Probably other things including, frankly, human error in setting their compensation packages.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "415312", "title": "", "text": "Your best bet is probably to limit the amount of money in the account. If there is never more in there than he would normally spend in a month, that limits the losses. I am curious why he writes cheques. Most people I know write only a few a year. Simply having another person hold the chequebook for him, and bring it to him when it's needed, wouldn't be a big deal for the people I know. Say he pays bills twice a month and needs it then, fine, but why does he need it when he's just going for a walk? But if this would be an argument then just move most of the money into an account he can't write cheques against, and put each month's expenses into the chequing account each month." }, { "docid": "99151", "title": "", "text": "If your father is still able to make financial decisions and sign contracts, I see a better option. Have your father borrow against his equity to finance the renovation. Example: the house is worth 400 now. He can borrow 100 against that. He spends it on the addition, making the house worth 500, with the same 400 of equity as before. (In some cases, spending 100 might add 150 to the house value, but let's assume here the increase is just what was spent.) When he dies, the mortgage has to be repaid. If he has no other money (that the two of you would otherwise split) then the mortgage has to be repaid by the two of you putting in cash. So you pay your brother 250 (half the new total value of the house) but he gives 50 of that to the bank for the mortgage. You also give 50 of your own money to the bank for the mortgage. Net result: your brother has 200 (the same as if he had inherited half the unimproved house), and you have a 500 house after paying out 300. Your gain is also the same as if the house was unimproved. Now if the house went up 150 by spending 100, or went up 60 by spending 100, you and your brother would also be sharing this profit or loss. If you don't want that to happen, you will need a different agreement. The advantage of the approach I'm suggesting is you just need one appraisal after your father dies. Not accounted for in this is that you lived (without paying rent) in your father's house for some time, and that you worked (without being paid) as a caregiver to your father for that time. Some families might think those two things balanced, others might feel you need to be compensated for caring for him, and others that you need to compensate the others for your benefit of living in the large house. Be sure to discuss this with your brother so that you agree in advance whether a plan is fair or not." }, { "docid": "16747", "title": "", "text": "\"The previous answers make valid points regarding the risks, and why you can't reasonably compare trading for profit/loss to a roll of the die. This answer looks at the math instead. Your assumption: I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Is incorrect, for the reasons stated in other answers. However, the answer to your question: Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Is \"\"yes\"\". But only because the question is flawed. Consequently it's throwing people in all directions with their answers. But quite simply, in a truly random environment the worst case scenario, no matter how improbable, is that you lose over and over again until you have nothing left. This can happen in sequential rolls of the dice AND in trading securities/bonds/whatever. You could guess wrong for every roll of the die AND all of your stock picks could become worthless. Both outcomes result in $0 (assuming you do not gamble with credit). Tell me, which $0 is \"\"worse\"\"? Given the infinite number of plays that \"\"random\"\" implies, the chance of losing your entire bankroll exists in both scenarios, and that is enough by itself to make neither option \"\"worse\"\" than the other. Of course, the opposite is also true. You could only pick winners, with an unlimited upside potential, but again that could happen with either dice rolls or stock picks. It's just highly improbable. my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? Nope. This is where it all falls apart. Just because your chances of losing it all are similarly improbable, does not make you more likely to win with one method or the other. Regression to the mean, when given infinite, truly random outcomes, makes it impossible to \"\"have an edge\"\". Also, \"\"probabilistically\"\" isn't a word, but \"\"probably\"\" is.\"" }, { "docid": "391323", "title": "", "text": "You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way. In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest) A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder. THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money). Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business? In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor') You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising? Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys.. THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings? an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well. For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission." }, { "docid": "129481", "title": "", "text": "I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)..." }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "> I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. > Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. > The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. > A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. > Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. > Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "146441", "title": "", "text": "\"Written with some mild snark , but no insult intended, because financial stuff can be ridiculously confusing... Looked at another way, you're basically asking if the Biblical \"\"Parable of the Talents\"\" can be implemented as a business model. You as the investor wish to be the \"\"master\"\", with the entity doing the investing playing the part of the \"\"servant\"\". Since the law prohibits actual servitude as described in scripture, the model must substitute a contractual profit- and loss-sharing scheme. OK, based on what you've proposed, and by way of example, let's say you invested a thousand dollars. You give the investment service your money. At the end of a year, they give you back - Your capital ($1000) - Plus 1/2 of any profits OR - Less 1/2 of any losses So let's say the worst happens and they lose ALL of it. According to your proposal, they have to cover 1/2 of the loss. You end up with $500...but they end up with LESS than nothing. They will be in a deficit situation because all the expense was theirs. They don't just fail to make a profit. They go in the hole. It doesn't matter what percentages you use. Regardless of how the loss is shared, you've only guaranteed YOU can't lose all your money. The company CAN. Given a large enough investment, or enough market fluctuation, a big shared loss could shut down a smaller firm. To summarize: - You want a service that charges you nothing - Does all the work of expertly managing and investing your capital - Takes on part of the risk you would normally bear - (on top of their usual risk and liability) - Agrees to do so solely for a percentage of any return (where higher returns will likely involve a higher degree of risk) - AND that guarantees, after just 1 year, you'll get X% of your capital back, no matter what. Win or lose. - Even if the market crashes and all your capital, and theirs, is wiped out Superbest, um, to be serious briefly: what you're proposing is, if nothing else, inherently unfair and inequitable. I believe you intended it as a mutually beneficial scenario, but the real-world imbalance in risk and reward prevents it being so. Any financial service that would accept those terms along with the extra degree of risk would be fiscally irresponsible. From a business standpoint it's an untenable model, and no company would build on it. It would be tantamount to corporate suicide. The requirement that a service promise to give you back X% of your money, no matter how great the loss, makes your proposal impossible. You need to think about how much all this costs, realistically, as well what kind of returns you can actually expect. And that more risk for higher return is exactly what a service could NOT take a chance on if it had to \"\"share\"\" investors' losses. Besides, it's not really sharing, now is it? They will always lose more than you, always end up in a negative situation, unable even to recoup costs. Circumstances beyond their control could result in a drop in the value that not only wipes out any profit, but requires them to pay YOU for work performed and expenses incurred on your behalf. Why would they let anyon double-dip like that? Yeah, we all prefer getting something for nothing...but you want valuable services and for them to pay you money for the privilege of providing them? I totally agree that would be fantastic, but in this world even \"\"free\"\" doesn't come cheap anymore. And getting back to costs: Without consistent income the service would have nowhere to work and no resources to work with. No office, computer, phone, electricity, Internet, insurance, payroll, licensing, training, maintenance, security, lobbying, etc., etc., etc. Why do people always forget overhead? There's a reason these services operate the way they do. Even the best are working with fairly slim margins in a volatile sector. They're not into 1-year gambles unlikely to cover their cost of doing business, or having to pay for a negative return out of their own pocket. Look, if you're the Biblical master asking your servant to manage things, overhead is built-in. You're taking all the risk as well. You're paying for all three servants' food, home, clothing, etc, plus you had to buy the servants themselves. So its reasonable that you reap the reward of their labor. You paid for it, and you didn't even punish the servant who buried your money in a hole. The two good servants may have done the legwork, but you took on the burden of everything else. In your proposed service, however, contrary to the servant's usual role, the servant - i.e., the company - would be assuming a portion of your risk on top of their own, yet without any guarantee of profit, income, or even coverage of costs. They're also subject to regulations, fees, liability, legal stuff, etc. that you're not, against most of which you are indemnified and held harmless. If they agree to cover a share of your loss, it exposes to greater liability and more related risk. It robs them of resources they need to invest in their own business, while at the same time forcing them to do all the work. As a result, your model doesn't give such a service a fighting chance. Getting it off the ground and lasting past the first-year payouts would require more luck than skill. They'd be better off heading to Vegas and the blackjack table, where the only overhead is a cheap flight and room, where the odds and rules don't change overnight, and they at least get free drinks. If none of the equivalents satisfies, then the Biblical parable appears to describe your only option for obtaining exactly what you want: Move to a country where slavery is legal and buy an investor :-) Cheers, c\"" }, { "docid": "171189", "title": "", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"" }, { "docid": "460196", "title": "", "text": "You are right, it is a Ponzi scheme unless it pays all of the profits as dividends. Here's why: today's millenials are saving a lot less, and instead they choose to be spenders. It's just that their mentality is different. If the trend continues there will be more spenders and less savers. That means that in 20 years from now, a company might sell more and make more profits, but because there are less investors on the market it will worth less (judging by supply and demand this has to be true). Doesn't that seem like a disconnect to you guys? Doesn't that just prove that all those profits are not really yours, but instead you're just sitting on the side making bets about them? If I own a company from the point where it goes public and while the value goes up I hold on to it for 50 years. Let's say for 45 years it made tons of profits but never paid a cent in dividend, and then in 5 years it goes out of business. What happened to all the profits they made throughout the 45 years? If you owned a restaurant that made a profit for 45 years and then went bankrupt you are fine, you took your profits every year because why on earth would you reinvest 100% of the profit forever? But what if you could sell 49.9% of that restaurant on the stock market, get all of that IPO money and still keep all of the profits while claiming that you reinvest it forever? That's exactly what they do! They just buy expensive things for personal use, from fancy cars to private jets, they just write it down as an investment and you can't see what the money was spent on because you are not a majority stakeholder, you have no power. It was not like this forever, companies used to pay all of their profits in dividends and be valued according to that. Not anymore. Now they are just in it for the growth, it will keep growing as long as people keep buying into it, and that's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme." }, { "docid": "288848", "title": "", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"" }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "94202", "title": "", "text": "\"There are healthy people and there are sick people. Each are that way because of their genetics, behavior, and (somewhat) luck. To some extent health insurance is insurance, and covers that luck... But mostly the Affordable Care Act and healthCare.gov are about health care... It's a scheme to allocate burdens, not to insure against risk. Healthy people dont think this is fair. \"\"When I invest time at the gym, invest money and time on healthy food, invest in learning healthy habits... And someone else doesn't... Why should I have to pay for their heart replacement? The freerider chooses to risk heart disease while I foot their bill, I pay twice prevention for myself and a cure for him, while he increases the cost for us all. \"\" Genetics is a touchy subject, but... if someone has a hugely expensive heridatible disease... Should that person and their spouse bear the burdens of having and raising their kids? If they can't afford to do so, should the rest of society have to take money away from their own families to finance that family's reproduction?\"" }, { "docid": "366852", "title": "", "text": "\">> Darling, if you are not a fan of Hillary (and the current DNC?), than why are you against Trump, who is not even career GOP politician? > I have already addressed this stupid idea that someone HAS to like one or the other. Are you serious? Why would you vote for someone you don't like? I would never vote for someone I don't like! I can't believe I have to explain that to you. Further, why would you even vote for a Party you don't like? Another question: **I assume you did not vote for Trump. Is it because you did not like Trump?** Do you get why I am asked this question? > Trump has no idea what he's doing. Absolutely not true and total fake news. Let's start with Hillary, who has been in politics for 30 years and even secretary of state: does she know how to handle e-mail(s)? Does she know how to handle Russia? Does she know how to handle Benghazi? Can you tell me of one \"\"accomplishment\"\" by Hillary in her long service? Back to Trump: he's very smart, which is mostly to choose the right people to do the work for him. He's correct with his agenda: against TPP, against illegal aliens, against terrorist supporting countries, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, bringing jobs back to America, replacing the horrendous ObamaCare (AKA \"\"affordable\"\" Care Act), etc. **What action by Trump so far show that he's not smart?** Give me one example, please.\"" }, { "docid": "265874", "title": "", "text": "\"A 'indexed guaranteed income certificate' (Market Growth GIC) fits the criteria defined in the OP. The \"\"guaranteed\"\" part of the name means that, if the market falls, your capital is guaranteed (they cover the loss and return all your capital to you); and the \"\"index linked\"\" or \"\"market growth\"\" means that instead of the ROI being fixed/determined when you buy the GIC, the ROI depends on (is linked to) the market growth, e.g. an index (so you get a fraction of profit, which you share with the fund manager). The upside is that you can't 'lose' (lose capital). The fund manager doesn't just share the losses with you, they take/cover all the losses. The downside is that you only make a fraction of whatever profit you might make by investing directly in the market (e.g. in an index fund). Another caveat is that you buy a GIC over some fixed term, e.g. you have to give them you money for a year or more, two years.\"" }, { "docid": "83698", "title": "", "text": "\"I mean it as a serious answer. If the very idea of your app is the valuable part then you won't have a successful business. If your idea is so incredibly amazing then someone can copy it as soon as your app comes out and you only have a couple months lead time. Also, the \"\"proper\"\" answer, NDA, has been given several times. Everybody has an app idea. Few people follow through. And, well we're on the subject don't be \"\"that guy\"\" who tries to get a developer to make it for him (The actual skilled part)and split the profits 50-50\"" }, { "docid": "428941", "title": "", "text": "\"> 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! If you *extend* a loan to someone, the loan is an asset to you and a liability to them. It's a liability to them because they *owe* you the loan + interest back. It's an *asset* to you because you expect to retrieve the full loan principal AND interest back. There is no difference, cash flow wise, between spending $100 on a machine that makes fidget spinners and earns you $110 back ($10 profit) and extending a loan to Billy at 10% interest (you'll get $110 back, $10 profit). > My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! Why not? I have $100 cash. I loan it out to Billy at 10% interest. Billy is creditworthy and reliable, and certain collateral is in place. I'm worth, essentially, a discounted cash flow of $110 (which as long as my required return is less than 10%, means I'm worth *more* than $100). > I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right? No. That assumes you spent $20 and won't get *any* of it back. It's the same as ordering a $20 pizza and eating it all. Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side. > Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky. > Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? No. '08 happened from a culmination of many different events, including risky and predatory loan origination, conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, and low Fed rates, among other issues, including several \"\"domino effect\"\" secondary issues. > Is the risk of default accounted for? Theoretically, the risk of default is accounted for in two areas: 1. The interest rate extended to the debtor. 2. A provision for loan losses. > \"\" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.\"\" In what context was this seen? No one would willingly sell an asset but hold on to the risk (or they'd charge a high price, at least, for that). Student loans are a special case. In the U.S., they are generally *non-cancellable.* They survive everything, including bankruptcy. They don't have collateral. Basically, they're going to follow the person around, regardless of situation, INCLUDING simply not paying. This makes default risk (or rather loss risk) lower. A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference. Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently. As such, while they don't have all the tools of the government, they're still essentially invincible.\"" }, { "docid": "450779", "title": "", "text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work." }, { "docid": "223103", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer will suck but it comes from someone who has been married: You can't control another person or convince them to do something. What you can do is identify what they value and show how saving money increases their opportunities in what they value, but understand that the person could see what you're saying as invalid too. If you're single and reading this, this is why you verify that the person has similar values to you. Think of it like someone who wants good gas mileage: you show them a car that gets 60MPG, and immediately they say, \"\"Well, but that's not a cool car.\"\" So their value isn't the miles per gallon, and you may find the same is true with your spouse. India is paying more interest than the US and Europe in their savings accounts (I believe the benchmark interest rate is 7.5%), so - assuming your spouse values more money - showing him how to use money in savings to passively earn money might be a technique that works. But it may mean nothing to him because it's (1) not his actual value or (2) isn't enough to matter in his mind. In other words, this is all sales and whatever you do (and this is regardless of gender), don't manipulate, as in the long run that tends to build resentment. If there is a specific problem that you know he sees as a major issue and saving money can help, I'd recommend showing how savings would help with that problem. People generally like solutions to problems; just remember, what you think he sees as a problem may not be what he sees as a problem. This is why I chuckle when I see single people give married people advice; you can't just \"\"convince the person enough\"\" because you are not that person; we have to speak their language and we should be careful to avoid creating resentment. The part that sucks (or doesn't depending on who you ask) is that if we can't convince others to do it, we should do it ourselves. Either (1) earn money independently yourself when applicable (realizing that you are about to have a child and may be limited), or (2) save the money that you and your spouse have agreed that you're allotted, if this applies to your situation (a few spouses divide income even when one is an earner).\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "211622", "title": "", "text": "\"On reflection there are financial products that do what you want, whole-life insurance policies that guarantee an annual dividend calculation on some index with a ceiling and floor. So you will have a return within a defined minimum and maximum range. There are a lot of opinions on the internet on this. This Consumer Reports article is balanced These have a reputation for being bad for the consumer compared to buying term life and investing in a mutual fund separately, but if you want the guarantee (or are a \"\"moral hazard\"\" for a life insurance policy, closer to death than you appear on paper) it may be a product for you. If you're very wealthy, there is an estate tax exploit in insurance death benefits that can make this an exceptional shield on assets for your heirs, with the market return just the gravy.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "450779", "title": "", "text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work." }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "263361", "title": "", "text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E." }, { "docid": "258911", "title": "", "text": "\"Although my kid just turned 5, he's learning the value of money now, which should help him in the future. First thing, teach him that you exchange money for goods and services. Let him see the bills, and explain what they're for (i.e. \"\"I pay ISP Co to give us Internet; that lets us watch Youtube and Netflix, as well as play games with Grandma on your GameStation\"\"). After a little while, they will see where it goes, and why. Then you have your automatic bills, such as mortgage payments. I make a habit of taking out the cash after I get paid, and my son comes with me to the bank where I deposit it again (I get paid monthly, so it's only one extra withdraw). He can physically see the money, and understand that if the stack is gone, it's gone. Now that he is understanding things cost money, he wants to make money himself. He volunteers to help clean up the kitchen and vacuum rooms in the house, usually without being asked. I give him a dollar or two for the simple chores like that. Things like cleaning his room or his own mess, he does not get paid for. He puts all his money into his piggy bank, and he has some goals in mind: a big fire truck, a police helicopter, a pool, a monster truck, a boat. Remember he's only 5. He has his goals, and we have the money he's been saving up. We calculate how many times he needs to vacuum the living room, or clean up dishes, to get there, and he realizes it takes a long time. He looks for other ways to make money around the house, and we come up with solutions together. I am hoping in a year or two that I can show him my investments and get him to understand why they make or lose money. I want to get him in to the habit of investing a little bit every few months, then every month, to help his income grow, even if he can't touch the money quite yet.\"" }, { "docid": "460196", "title": "", "text": "You are right, it is a Ponzi scheme unless it pays all of the profits as dividends. Here's why: today's millenials are saving a lot less, and instead they choose to be spenders. It's just that their mentality is different. If the trend continues there will be more spenders and less savers. That means that in 20 years from now, a company might sell more and make more profits, but because there are less investors on the market it will worth less (judging by supply and demand this has to be true). Doesn't that seem like a disconnect to you guys? Doesn't that just prove that all those profits are not really yours, but instead you're just sitting on the side making bets about them? If I own a company from the point where it goes public and while the value goes up I hold on to it for 50 years. Let's say for 45 years it made tons of profits but never paid a cent in dividend, and then in 5 years it goes out of business. What happened to all the profits they made throughout the 45 years? If you owned a restaurant that made a profit for 45 years and then went bankrupt you are fine, you took your profits every year because why on earth would you reinvest 100% of the profit forever? But what if you could sell 49.9% of that restaurant on the stock market, get all of that IPO money and still keep all of the profits while claiming that you reinvest it forever? That's exactly what they do! They just buy expensive things for personal use, from fancy cars to private jets, they just write it down as an investment and you can't see what the money was spent on because you are not a majority stakeholder, you have no power. It was not like this forever, companies used to pay all of their profits in dividends and be valued according to that. Not anymore. Now they are just in it for the growth, it will keep growing as long as people keep buying into it, and that's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme." }, { "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": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "415312", "title": "", "text": "Your best bet is probably to limit the amount of money in the account. If there is never more in there than he would normally spend in a month, that limits the losses. I am curious why he writes cheques. Most people I know write only a few a year. Simply having another person hold the chequebook for him, and bring it to him when it's needed, wouldn't be a big deal for the people I know. Say he pays bills twice a month and needs it then, fine, but why does he need it when he's just going for a walk? But if this would be an argument then just move most of the money into an account he can't write cheques against, and put each month's expenses into the chequing account each month." }, { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "171189", "title": "", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"" }, { "docid": "272525", "title": "", "text": "Because retirement account usually are tax effective vehicles - meaning you will pay less tax on any profits from your investments in a retirement account than you would outside. For example, in my country Australia, for someone on say $60,000 per annum, if you make $10,000 profits on your investments that year you will end up paying 34.5% tax (or $3,450) on that $10,000 profits. If you made the same profits in a retirement account (superannuation fund) you would have only paid 15% tax (or $1,500) on the $10,000 profit. That's less than half the tax. And if you are on a higher income the savings would be even greater. The reason why you can't take the money out of a retirement account is purely because the aim is to build up the funds for your retirement, and not take it out at any time you want. You are given the incentive to pay less tax on any investment profits in order for you to save and grow your funds so that you might have a more comfortable retirement (a time when you might not be able to work any more for your money)." }, { "docid": "402273", "title": "", "text": "You can see some IRS info on distinguishing a business from a hobby here. Nolo also has some info. The upshot is that you can only deduct losses if your activity is, in the judgement of the IRS, a for-profit endeavor. You don't have to make a profit right away, or make a profit every year, for it to be a for-profit endeavor, but you have to be able to convince the IRS that you're doing it in order to (eventually) make a profit, not just for fun. You can't just keep deducting the losses year after year if (as in the worst case you suggest) it never makes a profit and doesn't seem to have any chance of doing so." }, { "docid": "549270", "title": "", "text": "For most people, you don't want individual bonds. Unless you are investing very significant amounts of money, you are best off with bond funds (or ETFs). Here in Canada, I chose TDB909, a mutual fund which seeks to roughly track the DEX Universe Bond index. See the Canadian Couch Potato's recommended funds. Now, you live in the U.S. so would most likely want to look at a similar bond fund tracking U.S. bonds. You won't care much about Canadian bonds. In fact, you probably don't want to consider foreign bonds at all, due to currency risk. Most recommendations say you want to stick to your home country for your bond investments. Some people suggest investing in junk bonds, as these are likely to pay a higher rate of return, though with an increased risk of default. You could also do fancy stuff with bond maturities, too. But in general, if you are just looking at an 80/20 split, if you are just looking for fairly simple investments, you really shouldn't. Go for a bond fund that just mirrors a big, low-risk bond index in your home country. I mean, that's the implication when someone recommends a 60/40 split or an 80/20 split. Should you go with a bond mutual fund or with a bond ETF? That's a separate question, and the answer will likely be the same as for stock mutual funds vs stock ETFs, so I'll mostly ignore the question and just say stick with mutual funds unless you are investing at least $50,000 in bonds." }, { "docid": "360816", "title": "", "text": "As per JohnFx's comment above, consider whether it's worth more to you to just write this off. If not, if you feel that your son will be able to consider this without taking it personally, or you're willing to risk that relationship, then talk to him about it. Lay out the reasons why you need the money. If there are other children, it might be a simple matter of fairness to them. Based on your idea of deducting the money from his inheritance, I assume that the value you're docking from his inheritance will go somewhere else. Offer alternatives. You say that you can't take any money from him now, but letting him know that he can pay you in the future in lieu of loss of inheritance might be worthwhile. Be prepared with an idea of what to suggest if he says he can pay you some amount of money. Figure out what might be an acceptable payment plan and how to handle it if, at some point, he can't make payments for a time. This is a potentially ugly situation, and I can't guarantee that it will turn out better, but the more you prepare for the questions he's going to ask, the better off you're going to be." }, { "docid": "288848", "title": "", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"" }, { "docid": "478330", "title": "", "text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"" }, { "docid": "342865", "title": "", "text": "\"For some reason can't transfer it directly to his account overseas (something to do with security codes, authorized payees and expired cards). Don't become someone's financial intermediary. Find out exactly why he can't transfer the money himself, and then if you want to help him, solve that problem for him. Helping him fix his issue with his expired card, or whatever the real problem is, would be a good thing to do. Allowing him to involve you in the transaction, would be a bad thing to do. Possible problems which might be caused by becoming directly involved in the transaction: -The relative is being scammed themselves, and doesn't realize it / doesn't realize the risks, and either wants you to take the risk, or simply thinks there is no risk but needs administrative help. -The person contacting you is not the relative - perhaps they are faking that person's identity, and are using your trust to defraud you. -The person is committing some form of fraud, money laundering, or worse, and is directly trying to defraud you in order to keep their hands clean. -The transaction may be perfectly legal, but is considered taxable in one or more countries. By getting involved, you might face tax filing obligations, or even tax payment obligations. -The transaction may be perfectly legal and legitimate, but might accidentally get picked up as potential fraud by a financial monitoring system, causing the funds to be held, and your account to be flagged for further investigation, creating headaches for you until it becomes resolved. There are possibly other ways that this can go awry, but these are the biggest possibilities I can think of. The only possible 'good' outcome here is that everything goes smoothly, and it works exactly as well as if your relative's \"\"administrative problems\"\" were solved first, and the money went through his own account. Handwaving about why your account is needed and his is faulty is a big red flag. If it is truly just an administrative issue on his end, help him fix that issue instead.\"" }, { "docid": "135411", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"" }, { "docid": "222049", "title": "", "text": "Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed." } ]

[ { "docid": "474234", "title": "", "text": "\"What you are looking for is a pretty terrible deal for you, so I'd say it doesn't exist because there isn't a market for it, or nobody has noticed there is a market for it. In principle I would happily take the deal you offer from as many people as would let me, put the money into treasury bills, and take half the profits while doing pretty much nothing. If I had more risk tolerance I would be pretty happy to have half the value of my \"\"fund\"\" as zero cost investment capital for more aggressive investments. My business would then be a lot like an insurance company without the hassle of selling insurance to get hold of float to invest. Also, most insurance companies actually lose money on policies, but come out ahead by investing the float, so an insurance company with zero cost float is quite a good business. Another answer mentions Berkshire Hathaway. If you read one of the famous Berkshire Hathaway annual letters to shareholders and read the section about insurance you'll see that very low cost float has a large role in that company's success. So, back to your end of the deal: if the deal is that good for me, how good is it for you? I'd have to double market returns just for you to break even. If you're smart enough to pick a financial adviser that can beat the market by that much, how come you aren't able to pick an investment strategy that ties the market?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "467511", "title": "", "text": "\"Nothing wrong with the other answers, but here's a \"\"trick\"\" to hopefully make it totally transparent. Imagine that you're not the one implementing this business plan, but someone else is. Let's call this other person your asset manager. So on the first day, you give your asset manager $9. He takes this and generates $1 profit from it, recovering the $9 which he then reinvests to generate $1 profit every day. From your perspective, you just gave him $9. At the end of the year, he gives you $365 in addition to your original investment of $9 (in real life he'd take the fees of course, or perhaps he's been lending out the money he's been accumulating and taking the interest from that as pay for his services). So your return on investment is 365 / 9 * 100 % > 4000 %, as claimed by your source.\"" }, { "docid": "273390", "title": "", "text": "\"I haven't seen this addressed anywhere else, so I'll make a small answer to add on to the great ones already here. Money isn't the only way a person can contribute to a relationship. Time and effort are valuable contributions. Who runs the household? Who cooks, cleans, does laundry? How will you share these duties? My husband and I have a couple of rules. One of which is that we don't keep count. \"\"I did dishes, so you do laundry\"\". \"\"I made coffee last time, so now it's your turn\"\". \"\"I paid this, so you pay that\"\". That's not allowed. I happen to make ~4x as much as my husband, but I work 4x the hours (he's part time at the moment). So, he does the dishes, he cooks, he does laundry, he runs the household. Do I value him less? No! I value him more, because he is part of the team, and he feeds me coffee while I work (we have our own business). Even though I make so much more than him, we still split everything down the middle. Because his contribution to this relationship, to this household, is so much more than just money. And I value him. I value his contribution. At the end of the day, you are a team - and if you split hairs over finances, you'll find yourself splitting hairs over everything.\"" }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "> I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. > Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. > The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. > A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. > Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. > Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "113800", "title": "", "text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"" }, { "docid": "268261", "title": "", "text": "At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low. For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question. Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up. So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement. A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap. Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it. They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses. That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require. That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly. If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible." }, { "docid": "123511", "title": "", "text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"" }, { "docid": "59817", "title": "", "text": "I don't get why someone in his situation doesn't just hire a small team of financial planners, ask them to make the majority of their money as safe as possible, and then receive an allowance you can burn worry free every month. The amount of capital he's earned, his money could be working for him to generate all the disposable income one needs. I guess it still comes back to discipline and habits, if the allowance isn't giving him enough to buy a new fancy car every month he'll probably start to dip into his investments. I think what is really going to kill Mayweather's fortunes, is his gambling habit. He sinks hundreds of thousands of dollars on bets routinely. Eventually that will catch up with him." }, { "docid": "477552", "title": "", "text": "\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "295031", "title": "", "text": "Do not use a stop loss order as a long-term investor. The arguments in favor of stop losses being presented by a few users here rely on a faulty premise, namely, that there is some kind of formula that will let you set your stop such that it won't trigger on day-to-day fluctuations but will trigger in time to protect you from a significant loss in a serious market downturn. No such formula exists. No matter where you set your stop, it is as likely to dump you from your investment just before it begins climbing again as it is to shield you from continued losses. Each time that happens, you will have sold low and bought high, incurring trading fees into the bargain. It is very unlikely that the losses you avoid in a bear market (remember, you still incur the loss up until your stop is hit; it's only the losses after that that you avoid) will make up the costs of false alarms. On top of that, once you have stopped out of your first investment choice, then what? Will you reinvest in some other stock or fund? If those investments didn't look good to you when you first set up your asset allocation, then why should they look any better now, just because your primary investment has dropped by some arbitrary[*] amount? Will you park the money in cash while you wait for prices to bottom out? The market bottom is only apparent in retrospect. There is no formula for calling it in real time. Perhaps stop loss orders have their uses in active trading strategies, or maybe they're just chrome that trading platforms use to attract customers. Either way, using them on long-term investments will just cost you money in the long run. Forget the fancy order types, and manage your risk through your asset allocation. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will get better performance, and you will spend less time worrying about your investments to boot. [*] Why are the stop levels recommended by the formulae invariably multiples of 5%? Do the market gods have a thing for round numbers?" }, { "docid": "428941", "title": "", "text": "\"> 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! If you *extend* a loan to someone, the loan is an asset to you and a liability to them. It's a liability to them because they *owe* you the loan + interest back. It's an *asset* to you because you expect to retrieve the full loan principal AND interest back. There is no difference, cash flow wise, between spending $100 on a machine that makes fidget spinners and earns you $110 back ($10 profit) and extending a loan to Billy at 10% interest (you'll get $110 back, $10 profit). > My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! Why not? I have $100 cash. I loan it out to Billy at 10% interest. Billy is creditworthy and reliable, and certain collateral is in place. I'm worth, essentially, a discounted cash flow of $110 (which as long as my required return is less than 10%, means I'm worth *more* than $100). > I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right? No. That assumes you spent $20 and won't get *any* of it back. It's the same as ordering a $20 pizza and eating it all. Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side. > Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky. > Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? No. '08 happened from a culmination of many different events, including risky and predatory loan origination, conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, and low Fed rates, among other issues, including several \"\"domino effect\"\" secondary issues. > Is the risk of default accounted for? Theoretically, the risk of default is accounted for in two areas: 1. The interest rate extended to the debtor. 2. A provision for loan losses. > \"\" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.\"\" In what context was this seen? No one would willingly sell an asset but hold on to the risk (or they'd charge a high price, at least, for that). Student loans are a special case. In the U.S., they are generally *non-cancellable.* They survive everything, including bankruptcy. They don't have collateral. Basically, they're going to follow the person around, regardless of situation, INCLUDING simply not paying. This makes default risk (or rather loss risk) lower. A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference. Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently. As such, while they don't have all the tools of the government, they're still essentially invincible.\"" }, { "docid": "466718", "title": "", "text": "\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"" }, { "docid": "171189", "title": "", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"" }, { "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": "232425", "title": "", "text": "Did he say why he wants double your asking price? Did you explain to him how you came up with the offer you made? Sometimes exploring interests (why people make their decisions) is more helpful than bargaining over positions. If you understand why he wants double your offer (and he understands why you're offering a lower price) you might get closer to an agreement. Another option is to defer to a disinterested third-party who will pick a valuation for the company, and you can agree to abide by their decision (and pick a payout schedule if necessary) Think about what you'll do if you can't come to an agreement: is walking away from the business an option and going out on your own? What would happen to him if you simply walk away? It might be in his best interest to negotiate. Or will you reluctantly pay his asking price? Or can you sell the business to him? One option when partners need to split up is to have one of them set a value for the company, and the other decides if he wants to be the buyer or seller. (It's like the trick with kids where one cuts the cake and the other selects which slice he wants.) Maybe you can come up with a fair way of valuing the company. A lawyer will be needed to draw it all up, but you can agree on the framework of the deal ahead of time and save some money and stress. Last thought: when a win-win agreement isn't possible, sometimes the next best compromise is where everyone feels like he got equally screwed. That's ok, too." }, { "docid": "589607", "title": "", "text": "I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment.If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below)The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares?Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path.I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield.This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment. If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below) The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares? Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path. I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield. This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king" }, { "docid": "222049", "title": "", "text": "Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed." }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "452987", "title": "", "text": ">Sounds like he should sell or close the company. You bring up a very good point. If he cares so much about his employees, but it's just too inconvenient for him to run the company if his taxes go up 5%, why not sell it instead of putting 7000 people out of a job? Why threaten people when there's an obvious alternative? Hell, if he just wants to close it anyways, he could just give the company away. >See I can already shoot down your explanation, because it's not just higher taxes, its increased business tax liability, increased business insurance liability. Nope. He explicitly states that he will downsize or close the company if there are *any new taxes* whatsoever on either him *or* the business. It's also worth noting that his company is currently more profitable than its ever been. >Obama said he didnt build it What? >Rhetoric is cute until thousands of employees are out of jobs because the owner didn't feel it was worth it to continue the business. Yeah so maybe he should cut his bullshit rhetoric when those jobs are on the line and the only one responsible for their fates is him. And if it's really too much of a bother for him to run the company if he's making slightly less money when he's already said he has more money than he'll ever need, he can promote someone else to run the company or just sell it. Saying he cares about his employees makes him a liar, criticizing people who spent beyond their means makes him a hypocrite, and his empty threats and brow beating make him a bully." }, { "docid": "83698", "title": "", "text": "\"I mean it as a serious answer. If the very idea of your app is the valuable part then you won't have a successful business. If your idea is so incredibly amazing then someone can copy it as soon as your app comes out and you only have a couple months lead time. Also, the \"\"proper\"\" answer, NDA, has been given several times. Everybody has an app idea. Few people follow through. And, well we're on the subject don't be \"\"that guy\"\" who tries to get a developer to make it for him (The actual skilled part)and split the profits 50-50\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "306430", "title": "", "text": "\"Give me your money. I will invest it as I see fit. A year later I will return the capital to you, plus half of any profits or losses. This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. Think about incentives. If you wanted an investment where your losses were only half as bad, but your gains were only half as good, then you could just invest half your assets in a risk-free investment. So if you want this hypothetical instrument because you want a different risk profile, you don't actually need anything new to get it. And what does the fund manager get out of this arrangement? She doesn't get anything you don't: she just gets half your gains, most of which she needs to set aside to be able to pay half your losses. The discrepancy between the gains and losses she gets to keep, which is exactly equal to your gain or loss. She could just invest her own money to get the same thing. But wait -- the fund manager didn't need to provide any capital. She got to play with your money (for free!) and keep half the profits. Not a bad deal, for her, perhaps... Here's the problem: No one cares about your thousands of dollars. The costs of dealing with you: accounting for your share, talking to you on the phone, legal expenses when you get angry, the paperwork when you need to make a withdrawal for some dental work, mailing statements and so on will exceed the returns that could be earned with your thousands of dollars. And then the SEC would probably get involved with all kinds of regulations so you, with your humble means and limited experience, isn't constantly getting screwed over by the big fund. Complying with the SEC is going to cost the fund manager something. The fund manager would have to charge a small \"\"administrative fee\"\" to make it worthwhile. And that's called a mutual fund. But if you have millions of free capital willing to give out, people take notice. Is there an instrument where a bunch of people give a manager capital for free, and then the investors and the manager share in the gains and losses? Yes, hedge funds! And this is why only the rich and powerful can participate in them: only they have enough capital to make this arrangement beneficial for the fund manager.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "> I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. > Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. > The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. > A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. > Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. > Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "135411", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"" }, { "docid": "461215", "title": "", "text": "I think you need a lesson on Banking 101. > I mean siphoning funds assuming that you're going to be running a HFT shop or prop trading or using models to predict when something is most profitable, which is beneficial to your wallet but not really to society. I am confused, maybe your logic will clarify this concept for me. Say, I have invested in a mutual fund which has done really well and I have made returns of over 120% in 15yrs. Is this considered stealing as well?? According to you it would be. Maybe others were more patriotic and invested their savings in Treasury bonds which probably earned them say 28% in the past 12 years. How is this different from someone working as prop shop trader (You should generalize it as a trader not just quants). Sometimes they take losses other times they make profits. Most just manage to make a living. If not they find another career (Which I think a cynical man like you ought to be doing too). If you truly understand the industry structure and believe in it, you will realize it's just another profession. If you're truly disgusted by this profession, maybe ask yourself why does society tolerate over priced attorneys, over priced doctors, high end real estate, expensive designer clothing stores.. many other examples to cite here. To bring things closer to your life in perspective, the $10 t-shirt you're wearing was probably prepared by people like my cousins in India who work for wages of $110 a month. Should I call you a thief for stealing from her?" }, { "docid": "120649", "title": "", "text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses." }, { "docid": "170665", "title": "", "text": "According to this Q&A by a Houston law professor: The law, however, is not designed to interfere with an individual's right to stop payment on a valid check because of a dispute with someone. If he didn't deliver as promised, you do not owe the money and have the right to stop payment. Assuming that you had enough money in the bank to cover the check, stopping payment is not a crime. I found several other pages essentially saying the same thing. All the usual disclaimers apply, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. In particular, laws might vary by state. Basically, though, it doesn't seem there's any reason why you can't stop payment on the check just because you feel like it. If you then provide a cashier's check for the payment, your ex-partner will not really have anything to complain about. If you're worried about annoying him by doing this, that's a separate issue, but given the situation you describe, I don't see why you should be. If you feel he is being a pain in the neck, feel free to be a pain in the neck right back and force him to accept the payment in the manner you decide, instead of allowing him to string you along. Note two things: obviously if you have reason to believe the guy will sue you, you should act with caution. Also, I'm not suggesting withdrawing payment completely, only stopping the check and issuing a new payment that you don't have to wait on (e.g., cashier's check)." }, { "docid": "123511", "title": "", "text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"" }, { "docid": "289801", "title": "", "text": "\"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"" }, { "docid": "392660", "title": "", "text": "You currently have 5400€ between you and 2600€ expenses leaving you 2800€. You currently keep 1900€ and she keeps 900€ at the end of each month splitting 68/32. If you marry and have a child, your combined income will go down to 4900€ while your expenses will increase by 300€ to 2900€ leaving 2000€. You could continue to split 68/32 leaving you 1360€ and her 640€. If you use this split you will lose 540€ and she will lose 260€. That's a 28% loss for you and a 28% loss for her from your end of month take home. So far it sounds reasonably fair. What about the future? For each raise, the person getting the raise keeps 66% of their raises. If you get the majority of the raises, you keep the majority of the benefit, but both benefit from the increase. Any future increases in expenses can be split as negotiated based on who benefits from those increases. That's basically what you are doing now considering that adding a child will cost a lot of her time, not just your money." }, { "docid": "366852", "title": "", "text": "\">> Darling, if you are not a fan of Hillary (and the current DNC?), than why are you against Trump, who is not even career GOP politician? > I have already addressed this stupid idea that someone HAS to like one or the other. Are you serious? Why would you vote for someone you don't like? I would never vote for someone I don't like! I can't believe I have to explain that to you. Further, why would you even vote for a Party you don't like? Another question: **I assume you did not vote for Trump. Is it because you did not like Trump?** Do you get why I am asked this question? > Trump has no idea what he's doing. Absolutely not true and total fake news. Let's start with Hillary, who has been in politics for 30 years and even secretary of state: does she know how to handle e-mail(s)? Does she know how to handle Russia? Does she know how to handle Benghazi? Can you tell me of one \"\"accomplishment\"\" by Hillary in her long service? Back to Trump: he's very smart, which is mostly to choose the right people to do the work for him. He's correct with his agenda: against TPP, against illegal aliens, against terrorist supporting countries, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, bringing jobs back to America, replacing the horrendous ObamaCare (AKA \"\"affordable\"\" Care Act), etc. **What action by Trump so far show that he's not smart?** Give me one example, please.\"" }, { "docid": "170594", "title": "", "text": "You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing." }, { "docid": "83698", "title": "", "text": "\"I mean it as a serious answer. If the very idea of your app is the valuable part then you won't have a successful business. If your idea is so incredibly amazing then someone can copy it as soon as your app comes out and you only have a couple months lead time. Also, the \"\"proper\"\" answer, NDA, has been given several times. Everybody has an app idea. Few people follow through. And, well we're on the subject don't be \"\"that guy\"\" who tries to get a developer to make it for him (The actual skilled part)and split the profits 50-50\"" }, { "docid": "13325", "title": "", "text": "I can't imagine any scenario under which this wouldn't be a scam, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be talking about it once again. Any time someone you don't know and who doesn't know you wants to give you money for no good reason and asks you to provide personal information and bank info, there should be enough alarms going off for a five-alarm fire. Worse still this guy wants you to send half the money back to him. One simple question: WHY??? For what reason would they want you to send anything back? Why not just send you the money he wants you to have and keep the rest for himself? For heaven's sake, don't fall for this. Stay away from the whole mess and save yourself a bunch of grief." }, { "docid": "263361", "title": "", "text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E." }, { "docid": "466718", "title": "", "text": "\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"" }, { "docid": "430498", "title": "", "text": "I am considering making my investment history publicly available online What is the benefit you are looking for by doing this? Just to establish that you are a successful investor, so in long run can predict things ... have tons of followers? If so yes. Go ahead. Updates to the portfolio would have to be near real-time than post facto else no one will believe you and it would be useless. are there any reasons (legal, personal, etc.) not to publicize my personal investment history legal, depends on country; I can't think any [check the agreement with your broker / depository] on how much can be displayed. i.e. they may forbid from revealing contract ref / or some other details. On Personal front, it depends who takes a liking to your stuff. Relatives: They know you are making huge profits and may want to borrow stuff ... or queue up to you requesting to make similar huge profits for them; only to realize when there is loss they blame you ... this can strain relationships. Friends: Although close friends may have a general idea, if you are too successful and it shows; it can have its own set of issues to deal with. Colleagues / Manager: If you are too successful, it may mean you may notionally be earning more than them ... they would start unconsciously monitoring your behaviour ... this guy spends all day in office researching for stocks and doesn't work. That way he knows how to pick good stock ... he is wasting company time. The same happens if you are loosing stock ... a unrelated bad day you are having maybe equated to loss in stocks. Depending on the job / roles, they may move you to different role as the perceived risk of you swindling goes up. Generally important work doesn't get assigned, as it would be assumed that if you are successful in investing, you may quite soon and start full time into it. Identify Theft: As mentioned by keshlam, to much data one can easily risk identity theft. Realize phone banking to get some routine stuff just asks for basic details [that are available on face book] and few recent debits / credits to the account. This will be easy see the trades you have done. None of us here are expert identity theifs. But the real one have tons of way t" }, { "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": "517323", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares." }, { "docid": "420118", "title": "", "text": "\"Once you buy stocks on X day of the month, the chances of stocks never actually going above and beyond your point of value on the chart are close to none. How about Enron? GM? WorldCom? Lehman Brothers? Those are just a few of the many stocks that went to 0. Even stock in solvent companies have an \"\"all-time high\"\" that it will never reach again. Please explain to my why my thought is [in]correct. It is based on flawed assumptions, specifically that stock always regain any losses from any point in time. This is not true. Stocks go up and down - sometimes that have losses that are never made up, even if they don't go bankrupt. If your argument is that you should cash out any gains regardless of size, and you will \"\"never lose\"\", I would argue that you might have very small gains in most cases, but there are still times where you are going to lose value and never regain it, and those losses can easily wipe out any gains you've made. Never bought stocks and if I try something stupid I'll lose my money, so why not ask the professionals first..? If you really believe that you \"\"can't lose\"\" in the stock market then do NOT buy individual stocks. You may as well buy a lottery ticket (not really, those are actually worthless). Stick to index funds or other stable investments that don't rely on the performance of a single company and its management. Yes, diversification reduces (not eliminates) risk of losses. Yes, chasing unreasonable gains can cause you to lose. But what is a \"\"reasonable gain\"\"? Why is your \"\"guaranteed\"\" X% gain better than the \"\"unreasonable\"\" Y% gain? How do you know what a \"\"reasonable\"\" gain for an individual stock is?\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "268261", "title": "", "text": "At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low. For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question. Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up. So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement. A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap. Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it. They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses. That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require. That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly. If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible." } ]

[ { "docid": "288848", "title": "", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"" }, { "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": "467511", "title": "", "text": "\"Nothing wrong with the other answers, but here's a \"\"trick\"\" to hopefully make it totally transparent. Imagine that you're not the one implementing this business plan, but someone else is. Let's call this other person your asset manager. So on the first day, you give your asset manager $9. He takes this and generates $1 profit from it, recovering the $9 which he then reinvests to generate $1 profit every day. From your perspective, you just gave him $9. At the end of the year, he gives you $365 in addition to your original investment of $9 (in real life he'd take the fees of course, or perhaps he's been lending out the money he's been accumulating and taking the interest from that as pay for his services). So your return on investment is 365 / 9 * 100 % > 4000 %, as claimed by your source.\"" }, { "docid": "9471", "title": "", "text": "Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways." }, { "docid": "258911", "title": "", "text": "\"Although my kid just turned 5, he's learning the value of money now, which should help him in the future. First thing, teach him that you exchange money for goods and services. Let him see the bills, and explain what they're for (i.e. \"\"I pay ISP Co to give us Internet; that lets us watch Youtube and Netflix, as well as play games with Grandma on your GameStation\"\"). After a little while, they will see where it goes, and why. Then you have your automatic bills, such as mortgage payments. I make a habit of taking out the cash after I get paid, and my son comes with me to the bank where I deposit it again (I get paid monthly, so it's only one extra withdraw). He can physically see the money, and understand that if the stack is gone, it's gone. Now that he is understanding things cost money, he wants to make money himself. He volunteers to help clean up the kitchen and vacuum rooms in the house, usually without being asked. I give him a dollar or two for the simple chores like that. Things like cleaning his room or his own mess, he does not get paid for. He puts all his money into his piggy bank, and he has some goals in mind: a big fire truck, a police helicopter, a pool, a monster truck, a boat. Remember he's only 5. He has his goals, and we have the money he's been saving up. We calculate how many times he needs to vacuum the living room, or clean up dishes, to get there, and he realizes it takes a long time. He looks for other ways to make money around the house, and we come up with solutions together. I am hoping in a year or two that I can show him my investments and get him to understand why they make or lose money. I want to get him in to the habit of investing a little bit every few months, then every month, to help his income grow, even if he can't touch the money quite yet.\"" }, { "docid": "13325", "title": "", "text": "I can't imagine any scenario under which this wouldn't be a scam, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be talking about it once again. Any time someone you don't know and who doesn't know you wants to give you money for no good reason and asks you to provide personal information and bank info, there should be enough alarms going off for a five-alarm fire. Worse still this guy wants you to send half the money back to him. One simple question: WHY??? For what reason would they want you to send anything back? Why not just send you the money he wants you to have and keep the rest for himself? For heaven's sake, don't fall for this. Stay away from the whole mess and save yourself a bunch of grief." }, { "docid": "185983", "title": "", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5." }, { "docid": "273390", "title": "", "text": "\"I haven't seen this addressed anywhere else, so I'll make a small answer to add on to the great ones already here. Money isn't the only way a person can contribute to a relationship. Time and effort are valuable contributions. Who runs the household? Who cooks, cleans, does laundry? How will you share these duties? My husband and I have a couple of rules. One of which is that we don't keep count. \"\"I did dishes, so you do laundry\"\". \"\"I made coffee last time, so now it's your turn\"\". \"\"I paid this, so you pay that\"\". That's not allowed. I happen to make ~4x as much as my husband, but I work 4x the hours (he's part time at the moment). So, he does the dishes, he cooks, he does laundry, he runs the household. Do I value him less? No! I value him more, because he is part of the team, and he feeds me coffee while I work (we have our own business). Even though I make so much more than him, we still split everything down the middle. Because his contribution to this relationship, to this household, is so much more than just money. And I value him. I value his contribution. At the end of the day, you are a team - and if you split hairs over finances, you'll find yourself splitting hairs over everything.\"" }, { "docid": "123511", "title": "", "text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"" }, { "docid": "428941", "title": "", "text": "\"> 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! If you *extend* a loan to someone, the loan is an asset to you and a liability to them. It's a liability to them because they *owe* you the loan + interest back. It's an *asset* to you because you expect to retrieve the full loan principal AND interest back. There is no difference, cash flow wise, between spending $100 on a machine that makes fidget spinners and earns you $110 back ($10 profit) and extending a loan to Billy at 10% interest (you'll get $110 back, $10 profit). > My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! Why not? I have $100 cash. I loan it out to Billy at 10% interest. Billy is creditworthy and reliable, and certain collateral is in place. I'm worth, essentially, a discounted cash flow of $110 (which as long as my required return is less than 10%, means I'm worth *more* than $100). > I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right? No. That assumes you spent $20 and won't get *any* of it back. It's the same as ordering a $20 pizza and eating it all. Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side. > Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky. > Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? No. '08 happened from a culmination of many different events, including risky and predatory loan origination, conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, and low Fed rates, among other issues, including several \"\"domino effect\"\" secondary issues. > Is the risk of default accounted for? Theoretically, the risk of default is accounted for in two areas: 1. The interest rate extended to the debtor. 2. A provision for loan losses. > \"\" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.\"\" In what context was this seen? No one would willingly sell an asset but hold on to the risk (or they'd charge a high price, at least, for that). Student loans are a special case. In the U.S., they are generally *non-cancellable.* They survive everything, including bankruptcy. They don't have collateral. Basically, they're going to follow the person around, regardless of situation, INCLUDING simply not paying. This makes default risk (or rather loss risk) lower. A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference. Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently. As such, while they don't have all the tools of the government, they're still essentially invincible.\"" }, { "docid": "13299", "title": "", "text": "\"First: do you understand why it dropped? Was it overvalued before, or is this an overreaction to some piece of news about them, or about their industry, or...? Arguably, if you can't answer that, you aren't paying enough attention to have been betting on that individual stock. Assuming you do understand why this price swing occurred -- or if you're convinced you know better than the folks who sold at that price -- do you believe the stock will recover a significant part of its value any time soon, or at least show a nice rate of growth from where it is now? If so, you might want to hold onto it, risking further losses against the chance of recovering part or all of what is -- at this moment -- only a loss on paper. Basically: if, having just seen it drop, you'd still consider buying it at the new price you should \"\"buy it from yourself\"\" and go on from here. That way at least you aren't doing exactly what you hope to avoid, buying high and selling low. Heck, if you really believe in the stock, you could see this as a buying opportunity... On the other hand, if you do not believe you would buy it now at its new price, and if you see an alternative which will grow more rapidly, you should take your losses and move your money to that other stock. Or split the difference if you aren't sure which is better but can figure out approximately how unsure you are. The question is how you move on from here, more than how you got here. What happened happened. What do you think will happen next, and how much are you willing to bet on it? On the gripping hand: This is part of how the market operates. Risk and potential reward tend to be pretty closely tied to each other. You can reduce risk by diversifying across multiple investments so no one company/sector/market can hurt you too badly --- and almost anyone sane will tell you that you should diversify -- but that means giving up some of the chance for big winnings too. You probably want to be cautious with most of your money and go for the longer odds only with a small portion that you can afford to lose on. If this is really stressing you out, you may not want to play with individual stocks. Mutual funds have some volatility too, but they're inherently diversified to a greater or lesser extent. They will rarely delight you, but they won't usually slap you this way either.\"" }, { "docid": "171189", "title": "", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"" }, { "docid": "113800", "title": "", "text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"" }, { "docid": "272525", "title": "", "text": "Because retirement account usually are tax effective vehicles - meaning you will pay less tax on any profits from your investments in a retirement account than you would outside. For example, in my country Australia, for someone on say $60,000 per annum, if you make $10,000 profits on your investments that year you will end up paying 34.5% tax (or $3,450) on that $10,000 profits. If you made the same profits in a retirement account (superannuation fund) you would have only paid 15% tax (or $1,500) on the $10,000 profit. That's less than half the tax. And if you are on a higher income the savings would be even greater. The reason why you can't take the money out of a retirement account is purely because the aim is to build up the funds for your retirement, and not take it out at any time you want. You are given the incentive to pay less tax on any investment profits in order for you to save and grow your funds so that you might have a more comfortable retirement (a time when you might not be able to work any more for your money)." }, { "docid": "129503", "title": "", "text": "\"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes.\"" }, { "docid": "84951", "title": "", "text": "This isn't the movies. Killing someone's family to pressure them into DOING something for you is one thing, but that tactic doesn't work when you're trying to get someone to give you something they don't have. Let's say they kill his daughter or brother or parents, what then? How is he going to magically raise $3M? Go to a bank? Ask a friend? Tell the police? (btw, I find it interesting that his partner in that company was a police chief). It's not like he had the money but was just hiding it either. He simply had no way of paying, and they knew it, they probably worked with him for a while to get paid back and he couldn't get it done (maybe even tried gambling as the last option). Some other loan shark sure as hell isn't going to give you a loan to cover the loan you already can't pay back. They basically got fed up and decided to punish him by taking his life. Keep in mind him being killed bc of debt is purely my suspicion. It could've just been some random murder, Phili isn't the safest of places." }, { "docid": "517323", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares." }, { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "460003", "title": "", "text": "\"In economics, there is a notion called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. In a nutshell, the sunk cost fallacy says that human beings tend to prefer to \"\"throw good money after bad\"\" because of a strong loss aversion. That, coupled with how we frame an issue, makes it very tempting to say, \"\"if I just add these funds, I'll recoup my loss plus...\"\" In reality, the best best is to ignore sunk costs. (I know, far easier said than done, but bear with me a second.) How much you've invested is really irrelevant. The only question worth asking is this: \"\"Would I invest this money in the asset today?\"\" Put it this way - any money you spend on \"\"rescuing\"\" this upside mortgage is an investment that trades ready funds for a little more equity. Knowing that the mortgage is $100K in excess of the value, why buy that asset? If you could do a HARP, different story - but as you say, you can't. As such, buying into that investment is not the best use of your funds. You are throwing good money after bad. Invest your money where it will earn the best rate of return - not where your heart lead you.\"" } ]

[ { "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": "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": "289801", "title": "", "text": "\"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"" }, { "docid": "415312", "title": "", "text": "Your best bet is probably to limit the amount of money in the account. If there is never more in there than he would normally spend in a month, that limits the losses. I am curious why he writes cheques. Most people I know write only a few a year. Simply having another person hold the chequebook for him, and bring it to him when it's needed, wouldn't be a big deal for the people I know. Say he pays bills twice a month and needs it then, fine, but why does he need it when he's just going for a walk? But if this would be an argument then just move most of the money into an account he can't write cheques against, and put each month's expenses into the chequing account each month." }, { "docid": "391323", "title": "", "text": "You can get no load annuities through some no-load financial companies like Vanguard so to start with I'd see how what she is being offered compares with something that comes free of a sales load. I'd also question that fixed rate, seems pretty impossible to me, which makes me think there is some catch or 'gotcha' that we are not seeing that either brings down that rate, or makes it delusional (they are kidding themselves) or deceptive in some way. In any case it's setting off my 'too good to be true' alarm at full volume, along with the 'shark attack' alarm as well. (I would strongly suspect the 'advisor' is advising the product that makes the most money for him, NOT what is in your mother's best interest) A fixed annuity is an insurance product, not a security, because the insurance company must credit the annuity holder’s account with the specified interest rate for the contractually-stipulated time period, regardless of market fluctuations in actual interest rates. It is the insurance company that bears the investment risk, which it does by investing the annuity holder’s purchase proceeds in fixed-income instruments that the company hopes will provide sufficient return to fulfill its contractual representations to the holder. THIS is why there is no prospectus (it's not a 'security' they are not required to provide one by SEC) because the risk is entirely with the company. Obviously as pointed out in the comments, the company could easily go out of business (especially of they sell a lot of these and can't find a way to get that kind of return on the invested money). Now, ask yourself, if I was the insurance company, would I be comfortable guaranteeing that level of return over that much time if I intend to make a profit from it, pay sales comissions, and stay in business? In terms of 'will they stay in business' I'd have a hard look at their ratings, and go compare where that is on the total range for AM Best (they are lowest 'secure' rating, next thing down is in the 'vulnerable' category) and Standard and Poors (4 places down from their best rating, next thing down is 'marginal' followed by 'poor') You might also want to see if you can get any idea of historical ratings, is this company's ratings falling, or rising? Personally, for the amount of money involved, I'd want a company with MUCH higher ratings than these guys.. THEN maybe someone could say 'no risk', but with those ratings? an no, I don't think so! BTW I'd check over what this bozo (um sorry, that's not fair to clowns) is recommending she do with her own funds as well. For example is he recommending she take something that is already tax sheltered such as an IRA and investing the stuff inside that in an annuity (kind of pointless to 'double shelter' the money, or lock it up for a period of time when she may be required to make withdrawals) make sure you don't see something there that is actually against what is in her best interest and is only done to make him a comission." }, { "docid": "450779", "title": "", "text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work." }, { "docid": "487861", "title": "", "text": "You can't force a horse to eat carrots. You have to make him hungry... It's good that you're ready to start saving. The hardest part about building wealth is that most people live in denial. They think a bigger hat is wealth. That said, you need to get your husband excited about the idea of saving. If you're capable of sparking a little passion in him for saving then you'll see your wealth grow almost over night. So, how do you make someone excited about something as boring as saving? Great question. If you find a way, write a book. Honestly, I think it's different for everyone. For me it was like someone turned on a light. I was blind but then I saw. If he is a reader then I would suggest the following books in this order. If he makes it through those and has any argument at all against saving then write a book about him haha. Now I want to be clear, the other two answers above mine were also spot on. If you can't get him passionate about it then you need to take the initiative and start doing it yourself. I can't stress enough though that you both need to be engaged in order to do it quickly and efficiently. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "170665", "title": "", "text": "According to this Q&A by a Houston law professor: The law, however, is not designed to interfere with an individual's right to stop payment on a valid check because of a dispute with someone. If he didn't deliver as promised, you do not owe the money and have the right to stop payment. Assuming that you had enough money in the bank to cover the check, stopping payment is not a crime. I found several other pages essentially saying the same thing. All the usual disclaimers apply, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. In particular, laws might vary by state. Basically, though, it doesn't seem there's any reason why you can't stop payment on the check just because you feel like it. If you then provide a cashier's check for the payment, your ex-partner will not really have anything to complain about. If you're worried about annoying him by doing this, that's a separate issue, but given the situation you describe, I don't see why you should be. If you feel he is being a pain in the neck, feel free to be a pain in the neck right back and force him to accept the payment in the manner you decide, instead of allowing him to string you along. Note two things: obviously if you have reason to believe the guy will sue you, you should act with caution. Also, I'm not suggesting withdrawing payment completely, only stopping the check and issuing a new payment that you don't have to wait on (e.g., cashier's check)." }, { "docid": "113800", "title": "", "text": "\"See Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-A) (The Class A shares) and it will all be clear to you. IMHO, the quote for the B shares is mistaken, it used earning of A shares, but price of B. strange. Excellent question, welcome to SE. Berkshire Hathaway is a stock that currently trades for nearly US$140,000. This makes it difficult for individual investors to buy or sell these shares. The CEO Warren Buffet chose to reinvest any profits which means no dividends, and never to split the shares, which meant no little liquidity. There was great pressure on him to find a way to make investing in Berkshire Hathaway more accessible. In June '96, the B shares were issued which represented 1/30 of a share of the Class A stock. As even these \"\"Baby Berks\"\" rose in price to pass US$4500 per share, the stock split 50 to 1, and now trade in the US$90's. So, the current ratio is 1500 to 1. The class B shares have 1/10,000 the voting rights of the A. An A share may be swapped for 1500 B shares on request, but not vice-versa.\"" }, { "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": "467511", "title": "", "text": "\"Nothing wrong with the other answers, but here's a \"\"trick\"\" to hopefully make it totally transparent. Imagine that you're not the one implementing this business plan, but someone else is. Let's call this other person your asset manager. So on the first day, you give your asset manager $9. He takes this and generates $1 profit from it, recovering the $9 which he then reinvests to generate $1 profit every day. From your perspective, you just gave him $9. At the end of the year, he gives you $365 in addition to your original investment of $9 (in real life he'd take the fees of course, or perhaps he's been lending out the money he's been accumulating and taking the interest from that as pay for his services). So your return on investment is 365 / 9 * 100 % > 4000 %, as claimed by your source.\"" }, { "docid": "61518", "title": "", "text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "37146", "title": "", "text": "Your adviser cannot advise you if you don't tell him the whole picture. You don't have to invest everything with the adviser, you can just say that you have the cash allocation portion already invested elsewhere, and he can consider your portfolio based on that information. He works for you and you pay him for this work, why would you want him to provide a result that you know is worthless, because you didn't tell him what he needs to know?" }, { "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": "417133", "title": "", "text": "I am using my debit card regularly: in ATM's with a pin, in stores with my signature, and online. But later you say But from what I recall from starting my own business (a LONG time ago), for debit cards there's only a per-transaction fee of like $0.25, not a percentage cut. Only pin transactions have just a per-transaction fee paid by you to the merchant (and you are reimbursed by Schwab). If you use your card with just a signature or online without a pin, then it is a credit transaction from the merchant's perspective. The merchant pays a fee and Schwab gets its cut of that. So for two of the transaction types that you describe, the merchant pays Schwab (indirectly) out of your payment. Only when you enter your pin does it process as a debit transaction where Schwab pays the merchant. Because check cards withdraw the money from your account immediately, you don't even get the twenty to fifty day grace period. So those merchant fees are pure profit for Schwab, offsetting the loss from the ATM fees. You claim $4-5k in fees at $.25 each. That's sixteen to twenty thousand transactions. Assuming that several is four to five years, that's more than ten transactions a day. That seems like a lot. I can see three for meals, one for miscellaneous, and maybe some shopping. But if I go shopping one day, I don't normally go again for a while. I have trouble seeing a consistent average of five or more transactions a day. Even if we use just the higher ATM fees (e.g. $2), that's still more than a transaction a day. That's an extreme level of usage, particularly for someone who also makes frequent purchases via card. I haven't done any other business with them. I find this confusing. How does money get into your account? At some point, you must have deposited money into the account. You can't debit from an account without a positive balance. So you must have done or be doing some kind of business with them. If nothing else, they can invest the balance that you deposit. Note that they make a profit off such investments. They share some of that profit with you in the form of interest, but not that much really. Of course, Schwab may still be losing money on your transactions. We can't really tell without more information on how much of each transaction type you do and how much of a balance you maintain. Perhaps they are hoping that you will do other, more profitable, activities in the future. I doubt there are that many Schwab customers like you describe yourself. As best I've been able to see, they advertise their banking services just to investment customers. So it's unlikely that many customers who don't use their investment services use their banking services just for ATM reimbursements." }, { "docid": "511559", "title": "", "text": "\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"" }, { "docid": "428941", "title": "", "text": "\"> 1). How is a loan an asset? I'm the bank and I have 100$. I loan Jimmy 20$. With interest I expect him to pay back 25$. My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! If you *extend* a loan to someone, the loan is an asset to you and a liability to them. It's a liability to them because they *owe* you the loan + interest back. It's an *asset* to you because you expect to retrieve the full loan principal AND interest back. There is no difference, cash flow wise, between spending $100 on a machine that makes fidget spinners and earns you $110 back ($10 profit) and extending a loan to Billy at 10% interest (you'll get $110 back, $10 profit). > My books sure as shit shouldn't say I'm worth 105$ or even 100$! Why not? I have $100 cash. I loan it out to Billy at 10% interest. Billy is creditworthy and reliable, and certain collateral is in place. I'm worth, essentially, a discounted cash flow of $110 (which as long as my required return is less than 10%, means I'm worth *more* than $100). > I gave away 20$. I'm worth 80$ right? No. That assumes you spent $20 and won't get *any* of it back. It's the same as ordering a $20 pizza and eating it all. Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side. > Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky. > Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? No. '08 happened from a culmination of many different events, including risky and predatory loan origination, conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, and low Fed rates, among other issues, including several \"\"domino effect\"\" secondary issues. > Is the risk of default accounted for? Theoretically, the risk of default is accounted for in two areas: 1. The interest rate extended to the debtor. 2. A provision for loan losses. > \"\" because default risk is not transferred with the asset.\"\" In what context was this seen? No one would willingly sell an asset but hold on to the risk (or they'd charge a high price, at least, for that). Student loans are a special case. In the U.S., they are generally *non-cancellable.* They survive everything, including bankruptcy. They don't have collateral. Basically, they're going to follow the person around, regardless of situation, INCLUDING simply not paying. This makes default risk (or rather loss risk) lower. A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference. Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently. As such, while they don't have all the tools of the government, they're still essentially invincible.\"" }, { "docid": "295031", "title": "", "text": "Do not use a stop loss order as a long-term investor. The arguments in favor of stop losses being presented by a few users here rely on a faulty premise, namely, that there is some kind of formula that will let you set your stop such that it won't trigger on day-to-day fluctuations but will trigger in time to protect you from a significant loss in a serious market downturn. No such formula exists. No matter where you set your stop, it is as likely to dump you from your investment just before it begins climbing again as it is to shield you from continued losses. Each time that happens, you will have sold low and bought high, incurring trading fees into the bargain. It is very unlikely that the losses you avoid in a bear market (remember, you still incur the loss up until your stop is hit; it's only the losses after that that you avoid) will make up the costs of false alarms. On top of that, once you have stopped out of your first investment choice, then what? Will you reinvest in some other stock or fund? If those investments didn't look good to you when you first set up your asset allocation, then why should they look any better now, just because your primary investment has dropped by some arbitrary[*] amount? Will you park the money in cash while you wait for prices to bottom out? The market bottom is only apparent in retrospect. There is no formula for calling it in real time. Perhaps stop loss orders have their uses in active trading strategies, or maybe they're just chrome that trading platforms use to attract customers. Either way, using them on long-term investments will just cost you money in the long run. Forget the fancy order types, and manage your risk through your asset allocation. The overwhelming likelihood is that you will get better performance, and you will spend less time worrying about your investments to boot. [*] Why are the stop levels recommended by the formulae invariably multiples of 5%? Do the market gods have a thing for round numbers?" }, { "docid": "332757", "title": "", "text": "\"Not really. It will mostly come down to his personality and if he takes it personally. Don't feel bad. If he doesn't have a necessary expertise that you don't, he's not the right partner for you. Don't delay. It would have been better for you to nip it at the very beginning, but oh well. In the conversation, you'll have to mention his inexperience at some point. Buuuuut, try to make it more about you than him. Don't have the majority of the sentences be \"\"**You're** not this\"\" or \"\"**You** can't this\"\". Instead, make it about you and frame the reasons as an internal force you're grappling with. One that you can't fully control but must follow. \"\"**I** have this vision\"\" and \"\"**I** have been soul searching and doing research and now realize that **I** need full creative control\"\". If you've had any disagreements on serious issues about this business, use them. Mention them and talk about how uncertain the market is. That you might have to take an extreme turn, pivot the business, and that you don't want to listen to anybody or be beholden to anybody. Say you're being selfish but that you want to do it now to avoid conflict in the future. Making the dynamic about you vs. a passionate irresistible drive that you must follow...rather than you vs. him should help a good deal. You want the business for yourself. You are correct in this desire. You can't hide that fact so don't cover up or lie about this point, but make the reasons not necessarily about him. Mention high profile cases like Facebook and Tesla and how they split friendships up.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "543714", "title": "", "text": "I'm answering this from a slightly different angle, but there are people (individuals) who will do this for you. I know private Forex traders who are 'employed' to manage Forex trading accounts for wealthy individuals. The trader takes a percentage of the wins but is also responsible for a percentage of the loss (if there is a loss in a particular month). However the fact that the trader is able to prove that they have a consistent enough trading history to be trusted with the large accounts generally means that losses are rare (one would hope!). Obviously they have contracts in place (and the terms of the contract are crucial to the responsibility of losses) etc. but I don't know what the legalities are of offering or using this kind of service. I just wanted to mention it, while perhaps not being the best option for you personally, it does exist and matches your requirements. You would just have to be extremely careful to choose someone respectable and responsible, as it would be much easier to get ripped off while looking for a respected individual to trade your account than it would be while looking for a respected firm (I would imagine)." } ]

[ { "docid": "120649", "title": "", "text": "The company will have to pay 20% tax on its profits. Doesn't matter how these profits are earned. Profits = Income minus all money you spend to get the income. However, you can't just take the profits out of the company. The company can pay you a salary, on which income tax, national insurance, and employer's national insurance have to be paid at the usual rate. The company can pay you a dividend, on which tax has to be paid. And the company can pay money into the director's pension fund, which is tax free. Since the amount of company revenue can be of interest, I'd be curious myself what the revenue of such a company would be. And if the company makes losses, I'm sure HMRC won't allow you to get any tax advantages from such losses." }, { "docid": "89190", "title": "", "text": "\"I love it - it was the policies under Bush (as much as one can squarely place blame on the president) that results in the crash that nearly destroyed him - the same president he claims he got elected... and yet here were are and he is claiming if Obama is re-elected that he might have to fire people because of his policies (as much as he claims we can squarely place blame on the president) would lead to another loss for his company, that is after they enjoyed this period of recovery that allows him to continue building his massive house o' opulence. Wonderful business sense, \"\"Pay more in taxes?? FUCK those profits altogether! I'll shut down the company and HA HA! That'll show them! Because no one else will swoop in and pick up my massively profitable vacation scam business... you know why? Because taxes - that's why! And socialism! and communism!.... COMMULISM!\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "430498", "title": "", "text": "I am considering making my investment history publicly available online What is the benefit you are looking for by doing this? Just to establish that you are a successful investor, so in long run can predict things ... have tons of followers? If so yes. Go ahead. Updates to the portfolio would have to be near real-time than post facto else no one will believe you and it would be useless. are there any reasons (legal, personal, etc.) not to publicize my personal investment history legal, depends on country; I can't think any [check the agreement with your broker / depository] on how much can be displayed. i.e. they may forbid from revealing contract ref / or some other details. On Personal front, it depends who takes a liking to your stuff. Relatives: They know you are making huge profits and may want to borrow stuff ... or queue up to you requesting to make similar huge profits for them; only to realize when there is loss they blame you ... this can strain relationships. Friends: Although close friends may have a general idea, if you are too successful and it shows; it can have its own set of issues to deal with. Colleagues / Manager: If you are too successful, it may mean you may notionally be earning more than them ... they would start unconsciously monitoring your behaviour ... this guy spends all day in office researching for stocks and doesn't work. That way he knows how to pick good stock ... he is wasting company time. The same happens if you are loosing stock ... a unrelated bad day you are having maybe equated to loss in stocks. Depending on the job / roles, they may move you to different role as the perceived risk of you swindling goes up. Generally important work doesn't get assigned, as it would be assumed that if you are successful in investing, you may quite soon and start full time into it. Identify Theft: As mentioned by keshlam, to much data one can easily risk identity theft. Realize phone banking to get some routine stuff just asks for basic details [that are available on face book] and few recent debits / credits to the account. This will be easy see the trades you have done. None of us here are expert identity theifs. But the real one have tons of way t" }, { "docid": "273390", "title": "", "text": "\"I haven't seen this addressed anywhere else, so I'll make a small answer to add on to the great ones already here. Money isn't the only way a person can contribute to a relationship. Time and effort are valuable contributions. Who runs the household? Who cooks, cleans, does laundry? How will you share these duties? My husband and I have a couple of rules. One of which is that we don't keep count. \"\"I did dishes, so you do laundry\"\". \"\"I made coffee last time, so now it's your turn\"\". \"\"I paid this, so you pay that\"\". That's not allowed. I happen to make ~4x as much as my husband, but I work 4x the hours (he's part time at the moment). So, he does the dishes, he cooks, he does laundry, he runs the household. Do I value him less? No! I value him more, because he is part of the team, and he feeds me coffee while I work (we have our own business). Even though I make so much more than him, we still split everything down the middle. Because his contribution to this relationship, to this household, is so much more than just money. And I value him. I value his contribution. At the end of the day, you are a team - and if you split hairs over finances, you'll find yourself splitting hairs over everything.\"" }, { "docid": "460003", "title": "", "text": "\"In economics, there is a notion called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. In a nutshell, the sunk cost fallacy says that human beings tend to prefer to \"\"throw good money after bad\"\" because of a strong loss aversion. That, coupled with how we frame an issue, makes it very tempting to say, \"\"if I just add these funds, I'll recoup my loss plus...\"\" In reality, the best best is to ignore sunk costs. (I know, far easier said than done, but bear with me a second.) How much you've invested is really irrelevant. The only question worth asking is this: \"\"Would I invest this money in the asset today?\"\" Put it this way - any money you spend on \"\"rescuing\"\" this upside mortgage is an investment that trades ready funds for a little more equity. Knowing that the mortgage is $100K in excess of the value, why buy that asset? If you could do a HARP, different story - but as you say, you can't. As such, buying into that investment is not the best use of your funds. You are throwing good money after bad. Invest your money where it will earn the best rate of return - not where your heart lead you.\"" }, { "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": "295707", "title": "", "text": "\"Why must terms must be mutually exclusive? This (false) dichotomy is what seems to cause the most debate. It is the SINGLE EVENT OUTCOME that defines gambling. Gambling will involve an aleatory contract. That is, the outcome is specifically tied to a single event that determines profit/loss. This could be the outcome of a race or the roll of a dice, but should involve chance. This is why gambling is often in the context of a game, but I would make the argument that some investment tools fall into this category - The price of a stock at a certain date, for example. This may also be called \"\"betting\"\", which opens up a whole other discussion. Investing has no such implication, and as such it is the broader term. Investing is to put something (money) to work to return a profit. Some forms of gambling could fall under this umbrella. Some would say that is a \"\"bad investment\"\" and even if they are right, it may still be the desire and intent of the investor to make a profit. Not all gambling falls under investing. You can gamble for pleasure. The profit/loss of most investments are not contractually tied to a specific event or outcome (e.g. the price of a stock over 10 years is the result of many events affecting its market value). Such an investment would not be considered gambling.\"" }, { "docid": "9471", "title": "", "text": "Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways." }, { "docid": "478330", "title": "", "text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"" }, { "docid": "61518", "title": "", "text": "\"Your assertion that you will not be selling anything is at odds with the idea that you will be doing tax loss harvesting. Tax loss harvesting always involves some selling (you sell stocks that have fallen in price and lock in the capital losses, which gives you a break on your taxes). If you absolutely prohibit your advisor from selling, then you will not be able to do tax loss harvesting (in that case, why are you using an advisor at all?). Tax loss harvesting has nothing to do with your horizon nor the active/passive difference, really. As a practical matter, a good tax loss harvesting plan involves mechanically selling losers and immediately putting the money in another stock with more-or-less similar risk so your portfolio doesn't change much. In this way you get a stable portfolio that performs just like a static portfolio but gives you a tax benefit each year. The IRS officially prohibits this practice via the \"\"wash sale rule\"\" that says you can't buy a substantially identical asset within a short period of time. However, though two stocks have similar risk, they are not generally substantially similar in a legal sense, so the IRS can't really beat you in court and they don't try. Basically you can't just buy the same stock again. The roboadvisor is advertising that they will perform this service, keeping your portfolio pretty much static in terms of risk, in such a way that your tax benefit is maximized and you don't run afoul of the IRS.\"" }, { "docid": "37727", "title": "", "text": "If you break down the math it comes out to a loss to the IRS. Does every Fortune 500 store profits over seas? How much does Comcast store? Because they pay 33% in taxes. Paying 15 comes to a loss for the IRS. These companies are not improving on anything anywhere. Record profits and yet it's not invested back anywhere that helps the citizens. Why would it be invested after they have more money? Apple didn't when they made 30b, 40b, 50b 60b now almost 70b profit after taxes. Why would they if they make 80b?" }, { "docid": "170594", "title": "", "text": "You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing." }, { "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": "135411", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your question might be coming from a misunderstanding of how corporate structures work - specifically, that a corporation is a legal entity (sort of like a person) that can have its own assets and debts. To make it clear, let's look at your example. We have two founders, Albert and Brian, and they start a corporation called CorpTech. When they start the company, it has no assets - just like you would if you owned nothing and had no bank account. In order to do anything, CorpTech is going to need some money. So Albert and Brian give it some. They can give it as much as they want - they can give it property if they want, too. Usually, people don't just put money into a corporation without some sort of agreement in place, though. In most cases, the agreement says something like \"\"Each member will own a fraction of the company that is in proportion to this initial investment.\"\" The way that is done varies depending on the type of corporation, but in general, if Albert ends up owning 75% and Brian ends up owning 25%, then they probably valued their contributions at 75% and 25% of the total value. These contributions don't have to be money or property, though. They could just be general \"\"know-how,\"\" or \"\"connections,\"\" or \"\"an expectation that they will do some work.\"\" The important thing is that they agree on the value of these contributions and assign ownership of the company according to that agreement. If they don't have an agreement, then the laws of the state that the company is registered in will say how the ownership is assigned. Now, what \"\"ownership\"\" means can be different depending on the context. When it comes to decision-making, you could \"\"own\"\" one percentage of the company in terms of votes, but when it comes to shares of future profits, you could own a different amount. This is why you can have voting and non-voting versions of a company's stock, for example. So this is a critical point - the ownership of a company is independent of the individual contributions to the company. The next part of your question is related to this: what happens when CorpTech sees an opportunity to make an investment? If it has enough cash on hand (because of the initial investment, or through financing, or reinvested profits), then the decision to make the investment is made according to Albert and Brian's ownership agreement, and they spend it. The money doesn't belong to them individually anymore, it belongs to CorpTech, and so CorpTech is spending it. They are just making the decision for CorpTech to spend it. This is why people say the owners are not financially liable beyond their initial investment. If the deal is bad, and they lose the money, the most they can lose is what they initially put in. On the other hand, if CorpTech doesn't have the money, then they have to figure out a way to get it. They might decide to each put in an amount in proportion to their ownership, so that their stake doesn't change. Or, Albert might agree to finance the deal 100% in exchange for a larger share of ownership. Or, he could agree to fund all of it without a larger stake, because Brian is the one who set the deal up. Or, they might take out a loan, and not need to invest any new money. Or, they might find an investor who agrees to put in the needed money in exchange for a a 51% share, in which case Albert and Brian will have to figure out how to split the remaining 49% if they agree to the deal. The details of how all of this would work depend on the structure (LLC, LLP, C-corp, S-corp, etc), but in general, the idea is that the company has assets and debts, and the owners can have voting rights, equity rights, and rights to future profits in any type of split that they want, regardless of what the companies assets and debts are, or what their initial investment was.\"" }, { "docid": "466718", "title": "", "text": "\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"" }, { "docid": "450779", "title": "", "text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work." }, { "docid": "123511", "title": "", "text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"" }, { "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": "589607", "title": "", "text": "I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment.If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below)The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares?Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path.I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield.This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king I think the strongest reason against DHA purchases (I don't consider them investments) is points 3 and 5 mentioned above. The resale market is only to other investors that are convinced its a good investment. If you can't sell to owner occupiers, you've just removed the MAJORITY of your potential pool of people to resell to - this has a devastating effect on your ability to make any capital gain from your investment - if you're not chasing capital gain...be sure to understand why! (see article below) The marketing people will have you believe that DHA is a great investment from a yield perspective...maybe so, I haven't crunched the numbers. But in my opinion, I would wonder - who cares? Yield is important to ensure you can hold the property, but if there is no capital growth and you can't sell it for a profit or release some equity to buy the next investment, then you've just put a massive road block in your wealth building path. I am at the asset accumulation phase of my investing journey, so my opinion is skewed towards capital growth investments. Unless you have a sizable equity base already, in my opinion $4-5 Million in debt free assets, then you should be looking for capital growth assets...not high yield. This article from Your Investment Property magazine, although now dated, gives a good example to illustrate my point on why capital growth is the sensible strategy during the asset building phase of your wealth creation journey: Why capital growth is still king" } ]

[ { "docid": "146441", "title": "", "text": "\"Written with some mild snark , but no insult intended, because financial stuff can be ridiculously confusing... Looked at another way, you're basically asking if the Biblical \"\"Parable of the Talents\"\" can be implemented as a business model. You as the investor wish to be the \"\"master\"\", with the entity doing the investing playing the part of the \"\"servant\"\". Since the law prohibits actual servitude as described in scripture, the model must substitute a contractual profit- and loss-sharing scheme. OK, based on what you've proposed, and by way of example, let's say you invested a thousand dollars. You give the investment service your money. At the end of a year, they give you back - Your capital ($1000) - Plus 1/2 of any profits OR - Less 1/2 of any losses So let's say the worst happens and they lose ALL of it. According to your proposal, they have to cover 1/2 of the loss. You end up with $500...but they end up with LESS than nothing. They will be in a deficit situation because all the expense was theirs. They don't just fail to make a profit. They go in the hole. It doesn't matter what percentages you use. Regardless of how the loss is shared, you've only guaranteed YOU can't lose all your money. The company CAN. Given a large enough investment, or enough market fluctuation, a big shared loss could shut down a smaller firm. To summarize: - You want a service that charges you nothing - Does all the work of expertly managing and investing your capital - Takes on part of the risk you would normally bear - (on top of their usual risk and liability) - Agrees to do so solely for a percentage of any return (where higher returns will likely involve a higher degree of risk) - AND that guarantees, after just 1 year, you'll get X% of your capital back, no matter what. Win or lose. - Even if the market crashes and all your capital, and theirs, is wiped out Superbest, um, to be serious briefly: what you're proposing is, if nothing else, inherently unfair and inequitable. I believe you intended it as a mutually beneficial scenario, but the real-world imbalance in risk and reward prevents it being so. Any financial service that would accept those terms along with the extra degree of risk would be fiscally irresponsible. From a business standpoint it's an untenable model, and no company would build on it. It would be tantamount to corporate suicide. The requirement that a service promise to give you back X% of your money, no matter how great the loss, makes your proposal impossible. You need to think about how much all this costs, realistically, as well what kind of returns you can actually expect. And that more risk for higher return is exactly what a service could NOT take a chance on if it had to \"\"share\"\" investors' losses. Besides, it's not really sharing, now is it? They will always lose more than you, always end up in a negative situation, unable even to recoup costs. Circumstances beyond their control could result in a drop in the value that not only wipes out any profit, but requires them to pay YOU for work performed and expenses incurred on your behalf. Why would they let anyon double-dip like that? Yeah, we all prefer getting something for nothing...but you want valuable services and for them to pay you money for the privilege of providing them? I totally agree that would be fantastic, but in this world even \"\"free\"\" doesn't come cheap anymore. And getting back to costs: Without consistent income the service would have nowhere to work and no resources to work with. No office, computer, phone, electricity, Internet, insurance, payroll, licensing, training, maintenance, security, lobbying, etc., etc., etc. Why do people always forget overhead? There's a reason these services operate the way they do. Even the best are working with fairly slim margins in a volatile sector. They're not into 1-year gambles unlikely to cover their cost of doing business, or having to pay for a negative return out of their own pocket. Look, if you're the Biblical master asking your servant to manage things, overhead is built-in. You're taking all the risk as well. You're paying for all three servants' food, home, clothing, etc, plus you had to buy the servants themselves. So its reasonable that you reap the reward of their labor. You paid for it, and you didn't even punish the servant who buried your money in a hole. The two good servants may have done the legwork, but you took on the burden of everything else. In your proposed service, however, contrary to the servant's usual role, the servant - i.e., the company - would be assuming a portion of your risk on top of their own, yet without any guarantee of profit, income, or even coverage of costs. They're also subject to regulations, fees, liability, legal stuff, etc. that you're not, against most of which you are indemnified and held harmless. If they agree to cover a share of your loss, it exposes to greater liability and more related risk. It robs them of resources they need to invest in their own business, while at the same time forcing them to do all the work. As a result, your model doesn't give such a service a fighting chance. Getting it off the ground and lasting past the first-year payouts would require more luck than skill. They'd be better off heading to Vegas and the blackjack table, where the only overhead is a cheap flight and room, where the odds and rules don't change overnight, and they at least get free drinks. If none of the equivalents satisfies, then the Biblical parable appears to describe your only option for obtaining exactly what you want: Move to a country where slavery is legal and buy an investor :-) Cheers, c\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "399583", "title": "", "text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical." }, { "docid": "415312", "title": "", "text": "Your best bet is probably to limit the amount of money in the account. If there is never more in there than he would normally spend in a month, that limits the losses. I am curious why he writes cheques. Most people I know write only a few a year. Simply having another person hold the chequebook for him, and bring it to him when it's needed, wouldn't be a big deal for the people I know. Say he pays bills twice a month and needs it then, fine, but why does he need it when he's just going for a walk? But if this would be an argument then just move most of the money into an account he can't write cheques against, and put each month's expenses into the chequing account each month." }, { "docid": "222049", "title": "", "text": "Your recruiter is likely trying to avoid having to pay the employer's side of employment taxes, and may even be trying to avoid having to file a 1099 for you by treating your relationship as a vendor/service provider that he is purchasing services from, which would make your pay just a business expense. It's definitely in his best interest for you to do it this way. Whether it's in your best interest is up to you. You should consult a licensed legal/tax professional to help you determine whether this is a good arrangement for you. (Most of the time, when someone starts playing tax avoidance games, they eventually get stung by it.) The next big question: If you already know this guy is a snake, why are you still working with him? If you don't trust him, why would you take legal/tax advice from him? He might land you a high-paying job. But he also might cause you years of headaches if his tax advice turns out to be flawed." }, { "docid": "288848", "title": "", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "185983", "title": "", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5." }, { "docid": "129481", "title": "", "text": "I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)..." }, { "docid": "9471", "title": "", "text": "Definitely a scam. Don't call him or do anything. Stay calm, there is no damage done yet. I met someone online three weeks ago. ... Left his wallet, debit card, credit cards, drivers license, etc. in the room In the entire world its only you he can bank upon ... someone whom hes met online just few weeks ago; there are no relatives, friends !!! why would the hotel manager Fed-Ex or UPS the items to my home address ... and not to his own address? Upon receipt, the engineer will give me his password to the Bank of America account so he can access his account Why doesn't he have internet? I am supposed to call him in the next hour or so and let him know if I will be doing this tomorrow. Don't call. Don't reply. The $150 is just a starter bait to see if one is gullible enough to take it and then there is more and more by different ways." }, { "docid": "402273", "title": "", "text": "You can see some IRS info on distinguishing a business from a hobby here. Nolo also has some info. The upshot is that you can only deduct losses if your activity is, in the judgement of the IRS, a for-profit endeavor. You don't have to make a profit right away, or make a profit every year, for it to be a for-profit endeavor, but you have to be able to convince the IRS that you're doing it in order to (eventually) make a profit, not just for fun. You can't just keep deducting the losses year after year if (as in the worst case you suggest) it never makes a profit and doesn't seem to have any chance of doing so." }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "> I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. > Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. > The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. > A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. > Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. > Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "360816", "title": "", "text": "As per JohnFx's comment above, consider whether it's worth more to you to just write this off. If not, if you feel that your son will be able to consider this without taking it personally, or you're willing to risk that relationship, then talk to him about it. Lay out the reasons why you need the money. If there are other children, it might be a simple matter of fairness to them. Based on your idea of deducting the money from his inheritance, I assume that the value you're docking from his inheritance will go somewhere else. Offer alternatives. You say that you can't take any money from him now, but letting him know that he can pay you in the future in lieu of loss of inheritance might be worthwhile. Be prepared with an idea of what to suggest if he says he can pay you some amount of money. Figure out what might be an acceptable payment plan and how to handle it if, at some point, he can't make payments for a time. This is a potentially ugly situation, and I can't guarantee that it will turn out better, but the more you prepare for the questions he's going to ask, the better off you're going to be." }, { "docid": "299211", "title": "", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"" }, { "docid": "460196", "title": "", "text": "You are right, it is a Ponzi scheme unless it pays all of the profits as dividends. Here's why: today's millenials are saving a lot less, and instead they choose to be spenders. It's just that their mentality is different. If the trend continues there will be more spenders and less savers. That means that in 20 years from now, a company might sell more and make more profits, but because there are less investors on the market it will worth less (judging by supply and demand this has to be true). Doesn't that seem like a disconnect to you guys? Doesn't that just prove that all those profits are not really yours, but instead you're just sitting on the side making bets about them? If I own a company from the point where it goes public and while the value goes up I hold on to it for 50 years. Let's say for 45 years it made tons of profits but never paid a cent in dividend, and then in 5 years it goes out of business. What happened to all the profits they made throughout the 45 years? If you owned a restaurant that made a profit for 45 years and then went bankrupt you are fine, you took your profits every year because why on earth would you reinvest 100% of the profit forever? But what if you could sell 49.9% of that restaurant on the stock market, get all of that IPO money and still keep all of the profits while claiming that you reinvest it forever? That's exactly what they do! They just buy expensive things for personal use, from fancy cars to private jets, they just write it down as an investment and you can't see what the money was spent on because you are not a majority stakeholder, you have no power. It was not like this forever, companies used to pay all of their profits in dividends and be valued according to that. Not anymore. Now they are just in it for the growth, it will keep growing as long as people keep buying into it, and that's the exact definition of a Ponzi scheme." }, { "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": "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": "478330", "title": "", "text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"" }, { "docid": "332757", "title": "", "text": "\"Not really. It will mostly come down to his personality and if he takes it personally. Don't feel bad. If he doesn't have a necessary expertise that you don't, he's not the right partner for you. Don't delay. It would have been better for you to nip it at the very beginning, but oh well. In the conversation, you'll have to mention his inexperience at some point. Buuuuut, try to make it more about you than him. Don't have the majority of the sentences be \"\"**You're** not this\"\" or \"\"**You** can't this\"\". Instead, make it about you and frame the reasons as an internal force you're grappling with. One that you can't fully control but must follow. \"\"**I** have this vision\"\" and \"\"**I** have been soul searching and doing research and now realize that **I** need full creative control\"\". If you've had any disagreements on serious issues about this business, use them. Mention them and talk about how uncertain the market is. That you might have to take an extreme turn, pivot the business, and that you don't want to listen to anybody or be beholden to anybody. Say you're being selfish but that you want to do it now to avoid conflict in the future. Making the dynamic about you vs. a passionate irresistible drive that you must follow...rather than you vs. him should help a good deal. You want the business for yourself. You are correct in this desire. You can't hide that fact so don't cover up or lie about this point, but make the reasons not necessarily about him. Mention high profile cases like Facebook and Tesla and how they split friendships up.\"" }, { "docid": "477552", "title": "", "text": "\"I wish I was in your shoes with the knowledge I have in my head. financial goal setting is a great plan at your age. In my humble opinion you don't want to save for anything... you want to invest as much as you can, create a corporation and have the corporation invest as much as possible. When there is enough monthly cash flow coming from your investments... have the corporation buy you a house, a car, take out an insurance policy on you as key employee... etc. As for the $11,000 laying around in cash as an emergency fund, no way! With returns as high as 1-3% per month invested properly keep it invested. Getting to your emergency cash reserve you have in a trading account is only a couple key strokes away. As for the 401k... If it is not making at least 25% yearly for the last 10 years (excluding your Contributions) do it yourself in a self directed IRA. Oh... I forgot to mention When your corporation buys your stuff... if set up correctly you can take them as a loss in the corporate ledger and you know any loss from one entity can offset profits from another, thus reducing any taxes you may have. My friend you are at the point of great beginnings, hard choices and an open door to what ever you want your future to look like. Decide what you want out of your money and don't take \"\"NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT\"\" as an answer. Find someone that will tell you these secrets, they are out there. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "260043", "title": "", "text": "I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation." } ]

[ { "docid": "265874", "title": "", "text": "\"A 'indexed guaranteed income certificate' (Market Growth GIC) fits the criteria defined in the OP. The \"\"guaranteed\"\" part of the name means that, if the market falls, your capital is guaranteed (they cover the loss and return all your capital to you); and the \"\"index linked\"\" or \"\"market growth\"\" means that instead of the ROI being fixed/determined when you buy the GIC, the ROI depends on (is linked to) the market growth, e.g. an index (so you get a fraction of profit, which you share with the fund manager). The upside is that you can't 'lose' (lose capital). The fund manager doesn't just share the losses with you, they take/cover all the losses. The downside is that you only make a fraction of whatever profit you might make by investing directly in the market (e.g. in an index fund). Another caveat is that you buy a GIC over some fixed term, e.g. you have to give them you money for a year or more, two years.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "452987", "title": "", "text": ">Sounds like he should sell or close the company. You bring up a very good point. If he cares so much about his employees, but it's just too inconvenient for him to run the company if his taxes go up 5%, why not sell it instead of putting 7000 people out of a job? Why threaten people when there's an obvious alternative? Hell, if he just wants to close it anyways, he could just give the company away. >See I can already shoot down your explanation, because it's not just higher taxes, its increased business tax liability, increased business insurance liability. Nope. He explicitly states that he will downsize or close the company if there are *any new taxes* whatsoever on either him *or* the business. It's also worth noting that his company is currently more profitable than its ever been. >Obama said he didnt build it What? >Rhetoric is cute until thousands of employees are out of jobs because the owner didn't feel it was worth it to continue the business. Yeah so maybe he should cut his bullshit rhetoric when those jobs are on the line and the only one responsible for their fates is him. And if it's really too much of a bother for him to run the company if he's making slightly less money when he's already said he has more money than he'll ever need, he can promote someone else to run the company or just sell it. Saying he cares about his employees makes him a liar, criticizing people who spent beyond their means makes him a hypocrite, and his empty threats and brow beating make him a bully." }, { "docid": "59817", "title": "", "text": "I don't get why someone in his situation doesn't just hire a small team of financial planners, ask them to make the majority of their money as safe as possible, and then receive an allowance you can burn worry free every month. The amount of capital he's earned, his money could be working for him to generate all the disposable income one needs. I guess it still comes back to discipline and habits, if the allowance isn't giving him enough to buy a new fancy car every month he'll probably start to dip into his investments. I think what is really going to kill Mayweather's fortunes, is his gambling habit. He sinks hundreds of thousands of dollars on bets routinely. Eventually that will catch up with him." }, { "docid": "517323", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares." }, { "docid": "185983", "title": "", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5." }, { "docid": "511559", "title": "", "text": "\"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"" }, { "docid": "89190", "title": "", "text": "\"I love it - it was the policies under Bush (as much as one can squarely place blame on the president) that results in the crash that nearly destroyed him - the same president he claims he got elected... and yet here were are and he is claiming if Obama is re-elected that he might have to fire people because of his policies (as much as he claims we can squarely place blame on the president) would lead to another loss for his company, that is after they enjoyed this period of recovery that allows him to continue building his massive house o' opulence. Wonderful business sense, \"\"Pay more in taxes?? FUCK those profits altogether! I'll shut down the company and HA HA! That'll show them! Because no one else will swoop in and pick up my massively profitable vacation scam business... you know why? Because taxes - that's why! And socialism! and communism!.... COMMULISM!\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "> I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. > Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. > The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. > A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. > Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. > Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "415312", "title": "", "text": "Your best bet is probably to limit the amount of money in the account. If there is never more in there than he would normally spend in a month, that limits the losses. I am curious why he writes cheques. Most people I know write only a few a year. Simply having another person hold the chequebook for him, and bring it to him when it's needed, wouldn't be a big deal for the people I know. Say he pays bills twice a month and needs it then, fine, but why does he need it when he's just going for a walk? But if this would be an argument then just move most of the money into an account he can't write cheques against, and put each month's expenses into the chequing account each month." }, { "docid": "460003", "title": "", "text": "\"In economics, there is a notion called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. In a nutshell, the sunk cost fallacy says that human beings tend to prefer to \"\"throw good money after bad\"\" because of a strong loss aversion. That, coupled with how we frame an issue, makes it very tempting to say, \"\"if I just add these funds, I'll recoup my loss plus...\"\" In reality, the best best is to ignore sunk costs. (I know, far easier said than done, but bear with me a second.) How much you've invested is really irrelevant. The only question worth asking is this: \"\"Would I invest this money in the asset today?\"\" Put it this way - any money you spend on \"\"rescuing\"\" this upside mortgage is an investment that trades ready funds for a little more equity. Knowing that the mortgage is $100K in excess of the value, why buy that asset? If you could do a HARP, different story - but as you say, you can't. As such, buying into that investment is not the best use of your funds. You are throwing good money after bad. Invest your money where it will earn the best rate of return - not where your heart lead you.\"" }, { "docid": "598596", "title": "", "text": "In most jurisdictions, you want to split the transactions. Why? Because you want to report capital gains on your investment income, and this will almost always be taxed at a lower rate than employment income. See Wikipedia's article for more information about capital gains. In Canada, you pay tax on 50% of your realized capital gains. There are also ways to shelter your gains from tax; in Canada, TFSA, in the US, I believe these are 'roth' accounts. I actually think you have to split the transactions, at least in Canada and the U.S., though I'm not absolutely sure. Regardless, you want to do so if you plan on making money with your investments. If you plan on making a loss, please contact me as I'm happy to accept the money you are planning on throwing away." }, { "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": "417133", "title": "", "text": "I am using my debit card regularly: in ATM's with a pin, in stores with my signature, and online. But later you say But from what I recall from starting my own business (a LONG time ago), for debit cards there's only a per-transaction fee of like $0.25, not a percentage cut. Only pin transactions have just a per-transaction fee paid by you to the merchant (and you are reimbursed by Schwab). If you use your card with just a signature or online without a pin, then it is a credit transaction from the merchant's perspective. The merchant pays a fee and Schwab gets its cut of that. So for two of the transaction types that you describe, the merchant pays Schwab (indirectly) out of your payment. Only when you enter your pin does it process as a debit transaction where Schwab pays the merchant. Because check cards withdraw the money from your account immediately, you don't even get the twenty to fifty day grace period. So those merchant fees are pure profit for Schwab, offsetting the loss from the ATM fees. You claim $4-5k in fees at $.25 each. That's sixteen to twenty thousand transactions. Assuming that several is four to five years, that's more than ten transactions a day. That seems like a lot. I can see three for meals, one for miscellaneous, and maybe some shopping. But if I go shopping one day, I don't normally go again for a while. I have trouble seeing a consistent average of five or more transactions a day. Even if we use just the higher ATM fees (e.g. $2), that's still more than a transaction a day. That's an extreme level of usage, particularly for someone who also makes frequent purchases via card. I haven't done any other business with them. I find this confusing. How does money get into your account? At some point, you must have deposited money into the account. You can't debit from an account without a positive balance. So you must have done or be doing some kind of business with them. If nothing else, they can invest the balance that you deposit. Note that they make a profit off such investments. They share some of that profit with you in the form of interest, but not that much really. Of course, Schwab may still be losing money on your transactions. We can't really tell without more information on how much of each transaction type you do and how much of a balance you maintain. Perhaps they are hoping that you will do other, more profitable, activities in the future. I doubt there are that many Schwab customers like you describe yourself. As best I've been able to see, they advertise their banking services just to investment customers. So it's unlikely that many customers who don't use their investment services use their banking services just for ATM reimbursements." }, { "docid": "37727", "title": "", "text": "If you break down the math it comes out to a loss to the IRS. Does every Fortune 500 store profits over seas? How much does Comcast store? Because they pay 33% in taxes. Paying 15 comes to a loss for the IRS. These companies are not improving on anything anywhere. Record profits and yet it's not invested back anywhere that helps the citizens. Why would it be invested after they have more money? Apple didn't when they made 30b, 40b, 50b 60b now almost 70b profit after taxes. Why would they if they make 80b?" }, { "docid": "260043", "title": "", "text": "I'd recommend you use an online tax calculator to see the effect it will have. To your comment with @littleadv, there's FMV, agreed, but there's also a rate below that. One that's a bit lower than FMV, but it's a discount for a tenant who will handle certain things on their own. I had an arm's length tenant, who was below FMV, I literally never met him. But, our agreement through a realtor, was that for any repairs, I was not required to arrange or meet repairmen. FMV is not a fixed number, but a bit of a range. If this is your first rental, you need to be aware of the requirement to take depreciation. Simply put, you separate your cost into land and house. The house value gets depreciated by 1/27.5 (i.e. you divide the value by 27.5 and that's taken as depreciation each year. You may break even on cash flow, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, but the depreciation might still produce a loss. This isn't optional. It flows to your tax return, and is limited to $25K/yr. Further, if your adjusted gross income is over $100K, the allowed loss is phased out over the next $50K of income. i.e. each $1000 of AGI reduces the allowed loss by $500. The losses you can't take are carried forward, until you use them to offset profit each year, or sell the property. If you offer numbers, you'll get a more detailed answer, but this is the general overview. In general, if you are paying tax, you are doing well, running a profit even after depreciation." }, { "docid": "410431", "title": "", "text": "Thinking of personal residence as investment is how we got the bubble and crash in housing prices, and the Great Recession. There is no guarantee that a house will appreciate, or even retain value. It's also an extremely illiquid item; selling it, especially if you're seeking a profit, can take a year or more. ' Housing is not guaranteed to appreciate constantly, or at all. Tastes change and renovations rarely pay for themselves. Things wear out and have costs. Neighborhoods change in popularity. Without rental income and the ability to write off some of the costs as business expense, it isn't clear the tax advantage closes that gap, especislly as the advantage is limited to the taxes upon your mortgage interest (by deducting that from AGI). If this is the flavor of speculation you want to engage in, fine, but I've seen people screw themselves over this way and wind up forced to sell a house for a loss. By all means hope your home will be profitable, count it as part of your net wealth... but generally Lynch is wrong here, or at best oversimplified. A house can be an investment (or perhaps more accurately a business), or your home, but -- unless you're renting out the other half of a duplex,which splits the difference -- trying to treat it as both is dangerous accounting." }, { "docid": "366852", "title": "", "text": "\">> Darling, if you are not a fan of Hillary (and the current DNC?), than why are you against Trump, who is not even career GOP politician? > I have already addressed this stupid idea that someone HAS to like one or the other. Are you serious? Why would you vote for someone you don't like? I would never vote for someone I don't like! I can't believe I have to explain that to you. Further, why would you even vote for a Party you don't like? Another question: **I assume you did not vote for Trump. Is it because you did not like Trump?** Do you get why I am asked this question? > Trump has no idea what he's doing. Absolutely not true and total fake news. Let's start with Hillary, who has been in politics for 30 years and even secretary of state: does she know how to handle e-mail(s)? Does she know how to handle Russia? Does she know how to handle Benghazi? Can you tell me of one \"\"accomplishment\"\" by Hillary in her long service? Back to Trump: he's very smart, which is mostly to choose the right people to do the work for him. He's correct with his agenda: against TPP, against illegal aliens, against terrorist supporting countries, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, bringing jobs back to America, replacing the horrendous ObamaCare (AKA \"\"affordable\"\" Care Act), etc. **What action by Trump so far show that he's not smart?** Give me one example, please.\"" }, { "docid": "170594", "title": "", "text": "You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing." }, { "docid": "467511", "title": "", "text": "\"Nothing wrong with the other answers, but here's a \"\"trick\"\" to hopefully make it totally transparent. Imagine that you're not the one implementing this business plan, but someone else is. Let's call this other person your asset manager. So on the first day, you give your asset manager $9. He takes this and generates $1 profit from it, recovering the $9 which he then reinvests to generate $1 profit every day. From your perspective, you just gave him $9. At the end of the year, he gives you $365 in addition to your original investment of $9 (in real life he'd take the fees of course, or perhaps he's been lending out the money he's been accumulating and taking the interest from that as pay for his services). So your return on investment is 365 / 9 * 100 % > 4000 %, as claimed by your source.\"" }, { "docid": "263361", "title": "", "text": "Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E." } ]

[ { "docid": "134864", "title": "", "text": "Such an offer has negative value, so it's hard to see how it would make sense to accept it. The offer has two components, one part that you gain and one part that you lose. The gain is that half your losses are covered. The cost is that half your profits are lost. For that to be a net benefit to you, you would have to expect that you will gain more from this than you will lose from it. That is, you must expect that the investment has negative value. But if you expect that the investment has negative value, why are you investing? This also doesn't really align incentives between the two parties. The person choosing the investment is not incurring opportunity cost (because they have no funds locked up) while you are. So they have an incentive to be conservative that you do not. For example, say I could make 1% in an ultra low risk CD. The person choosing the investments has an incentive to put me in something that he only expects to make around 0.5% (because he gets to keep half the profits and it costs him nothing). Whereas I'd rather just put the money in a CD (because I get to keep 1% instead just half of 0.5%)." } ]

[ { "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": "460003", "title": "", "text": "\"In economics, there is a notion called the Sunk Cost Fallacy. In a nutshell, the sunk cost fallacy says that human beings tend to prefer to \"\"throw good money after bad\"\" because of a strong loss aversion. That, coupled with how we frame an issue, makes it very tempting to say, \"\"if I just add these funds, I'll recoup my loss plus...\"\" In reality, the best best is to ignore sunk costs. (I know, far easier said than done, but bear with me a second.) How much you've invested is really irrelevant. The only question worth asking is this: \"\"Would I invest this money in the asset today?\"\" Put it this way - any money you spend on \"\"rescuing\"\" this upside mortgage is an investment that trades ready funds for a little more equity. Knowing that the mortgage is $100K in excess of the value, why buy that asset? If you could do a HARP, different story - but as you say, you can't. As such, buying into that investment is not the best use of your funds. You are throwing good money after bad. Invest your money where it will earn the best rate of return - not where your heart lead you.\"" }, { "docid": "360059", "title": "", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"" }, { "docid": "99151", "title": "", "text": "If your father is still able to make financial decisions and sign contracts, I see a better option. Have your father borrow against his equity to finance the renovation. Example: the house is worth 400 now. He can borrow 100 against that. He spends it on the addition, making the house worth 500, with the same 400 of equity as before. (In some cases, spending 100 might add 150 to the house value, but let's assume here the increase is just what was spent.) When he dies, the mortgage has to be repaid. If he has no other money (that the two of you would otherwise split) then the mortgage has to be repaid by the two of you putting in cash. So you pay your brother 250 (half the new total value of the house) but he gives 50 of that to the bank for the mortgage. You also give 50 of your own money to the bank for the mortgage. Net result: your brother has 200 (the same as if he had inherited half the unimproved house), and you have a 500 house after paying out 300. Your gain is also the same as if the house was unimproved. Now if the house went up 150 by spending 100, or went up 60 by spending 100, you and your brother would also be sharing this profit or loss. If you don't want that to happen, you will need a different agreement. The advantage of the approach I'm suggesting is you just need one appraisal after your father dies. Not accounted for in this is that you lived (without paying rent) in your father's house for some time, and that you worked (without being paid) as a caregiver to your father for that time. Some families might think those two things balanced, others might feel you need to be compensated for caring for him, and others that you need to compensate the others for your benefit of living in the large house. Be sure to discuss this with your brother so that you agree in advance whether a plan is fair or not." }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "223103", "title": "", "text": "\"My answer will suck but it comes from someone who has been married: You can't control another person or convince them to do something. What you can do is identify what they value and show how saving money increases their opportunities in what they value, but understand that the person could see what you're saying as invalid too. If you're single and reading this, this is why you verify that the person has similar values to you. Think of it like someone who wants good gas mileage: you show them a car that gets 60MPG, and immediately they say, \"\"Well, but that's not a cool car.\"\" So their value isn't the miles per gallon, and you may find the same is true with your spouse. India is paying more interest than the US and Europe in their savings accounts (I believe the benchmark interest rate is 7.5%), so - assuming your spouse values more money - showing him how to use money in savings to passively earn money might be a technique that works. But it may mean nothing to him because it's (1) not his actual value or (2) isn't enough to matter in his mind. In other words, this is all sales and whatever you do (and this is regardless of gender), don't manipulate, as in the long run that tends to build resentment. If there is a specific problem that you know he sees as a major issue and saving money can help, I'd recommend showing how savings would help with that problem. People generally like solutions to problems; just remember, what you think he sees as a problem may not be what he sees as a problem. This is why I chuckle when I see single people give married people advice; you can't just \"\"convince the person enough\"\" because you are not that person; we have to speak their language and we should be careful to avoid creating resentment. The part that sucks (or doesn't depending on who you ask) is that if we can't convince others to do it, we should do it ourselves. Either (1) earn money independently yourself when applicable (realizing that you are about to have a child and may be limited), or (2) save the money that you and your spouse have agreed that you're allotted, if this applies to your situation (a few spouses divide income even when one is an earner).\"" }, { "docid": "123511", "title": "", "text": "\"What can I do to help him out, but at the same time protect myself from any potential scams? Find out why he can't do this himself. Whether your relative is being sincere or not, if he owns both accounts then he should be able to transfer money between them by himself. If you can find a way to solve that issue without involving your bank account, so much the better. Don't settle for \"\"something about authorized payees and expired cards.\"\" Get details, write them down. If possible, get documents. Then go to a bank or financial adviser you can trust and run those details by them to see what they have to say. Even if there's no scam, if what he's trying to do is illegal (even if he doesn't realize it himself) then you want to know before you get involved. You say you're willing to deal with \"\"other issues\"\" separately, but keep in mind that, even if there's no external scam here, those \"\"other issues\"\" could include hefty fees, censures on your own account, or jail time. Ask yourself: Does it make sense that this relative has an account overseas? I don't have any overseas accounts, because I don't do business in other countries. Is your relative a dual-citizen? Does he travel a lot? What country is the overseas account in? How long has he had this account? What bank is it with? Where the money is going is just as important as how it gets there (ie: through your account.) Arguably more so. Keep in mind that many scammers tell their marks not to share what's going on with anyone else. (Because doing so increases the odds of someone telling them to snap out of it.) It's entirely possible he's being scammed himself and just not telling you the whole story because the 419er is telling him to keep it quiet. (Check out that link for more details on common scams that your relative may be unwittingly part of, btw.) Get as many details as possible about what he's doing and why. If he's communicating with anyone else regarding this transfer, find out who. If there are emails, ask his permission to read them and watch for anything suspicious (ie: people who can't spell their own name consistently, constant pressure to act quickly, etc.)\"" }, { "docid": "399583", "title": "", "text": "In a comment on this answer you asked It's not clear to me why the ability to defer the gains would matter (since you never materially benefit until you actually sell) but the estate step up in basis is a great point! Could you describe a hypothetical exploitive scenario (utilizing a wash sale) in a little more detail? This sounds like you still have the same question as originally, so I'll take a stab at answering with an example. I sell some security for a $10,000 profit. I then sell another security at a $10,000 loss and immediately rebuy. So pay no taxes (without the rule). Assuming a 15% rate, that's $1500 in savings which I realize immediately. Next year, I sell that same security for a $20,000 profit over the $10,000 loss basis (so a $10,000 profit over my original purchase). I sell and buy another security to pay no taxes. In fact, I pay no taxes like this for fifty years as I live off my investments (and a pension or social security that uses up my tax deductions). Then I die. All my securities step up in basis to their current market value. So I completely evade taxes on $500,000 in profits. That's $75,000 in tax savings to make my heirs richer. And they're already getting at least $500,000 worth of securities. Especially consider the case where I sell a privately held security to a private buyer who then sells me back the same shares at the same price. Don't think that $10,000 is enough? Remember that you also get the original value. But this also scales. It could be $100,000 in gains as well, for $750,000 in tax savings over the fifty years. That's at least $5 million of securities. The effective result of this would be to make a 0% tax on capital gains for many rich people. Worse, a poorer person can't do the same thing. You need to have many investments to take advantage of this. If a relatively poor person with two $500 investments tried this, that person would lose all the benefit in trading fees. And of course such a person would run out of investments quickly. Really poor people have $0 in investments, so this is totally impractical." }, { "docid": "511432", "title": "", "text": "\"I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. Why move funds back? If you want to lock in current exchange rates, figure out how much money you are likely to spend in Australia for the next six months. Move just enough funds to cover that to an Australian bank. Leave the remainder in the United States (US), as your future expenses will be in US dollars. So long as you don't find some major, unanticipated purchase, this covers you. You have enough money for the next six months with no exchange rate worries. At the end of the six months, if you fall slightly short, cover with your credit card as you are doing now. You'll take a loss, but on a small amount of money. If you have a slight excess and you were right about the exchange rate, you'll make a little profit at the end. If you were wrong, you'll take a small loss. The key here is that you should be able to budget for your six months. You can lock in current exchange rates just for that amount of money. Moving all your funds to Australia is a gamble. You can certainly do that if you want, but rather than gambling, it may be better to take the sure thing. You know you need six months expenses, so just move that. You will definitely be spending six months money in Australia, so you are immune to exchange rate fluctuations for that period. The remainder of your money can stay in the US, as that's where you plan to spend it. However, recent political events back in the States have me (and, I'm sure, every currency speculator and foreign investor) worried that this advantage will not last for much longer. If currency speculators expect exchange rates to fall, then they'd have already bid down the rates. I.e. they'd keep speculating until the rates did fall. So the speculators expect the current rates are correct, otherwise they'd move them. Donald Trump's state goal is to increase exports relative to imports. If he's successful, this could cause the US dollar to fall to make exports cheaper and imports more expensive. However, if his policies fail, then the opposite is likely to happen. Most of his announced trade policies are more likely to increase the value of the dollar than to decrease it. In particular, that is the likely result of increased tariffs. If you are worried about Trump failing, then you should worry about a strong dollar. That's more in line with actual speculation since the election. I don't know that I'd make a strong bet in either direction. Hedging makes more sense to me, as it simply locks in the current situation, which you apparently find favorable. Not hedging at all might produce some profit if the dollar goes up. Gambling all your funds might produce some profit if the dollar goes down. The middle path of hedging just what you're spending is the safest if least likely to produce profit. My recommendation is to hedge the six months expenses and enjoy your time abroad. Why worry about political events that you can't control? Enjoy your working (studying) vacation.\"" }, { "docid": "402273", "title": "", "text": "You can see some IRS info on distinguishing a business from a hobby here. Nolo also has some info. The upshot is that you can only deduct losses if your activity is, in the judgement of the IRS, a for-profit endeavor. You don't have to make a profit right away, or make a profit every year, for it to be a for-profit endeavor, but you have to be able to convince the IRS that you're doing it in order to (eventually) make a profit, not just for fun. You can't just keep deducting the losses year after year if (as in the worst case you suggest) it never makes a profit and doesn't seem to have any chance of doing so." }, { "docid": "13325", "title": "", "text": "I can't imagine any scenario under which this wouldn't be a scam, and frankly I'm a bit surprised to be talking about it once again. Any time someone you don't know and who doesn't know you wants to give you money for no good reason and asks you to provide personal information and bank info, there should be enough alarms going off for a five-alarm fire. Worse still this guy wants you to send half the money back to him. One simple question: WHY??? For what reason would they want you to send anything back? Why not just send you the money he wants you to have and keep the rest for himself? For heaven's sake, don't fall for this. Stay away from the whole mess and save yourself a bunch of grief." }, { "docid": "487861", "title": "", "text": "You can't force a horse to eat carrots. You have to make him hungry... It's good that you're ready to start saving. The hardest part about building wealth is that most people live in denial. They think a bigger hat is wealth. That said, you need to get your husband excited about the idea of saving. If you're capable of sparking a little passion in him for saving then you'll see your wealth grow almost over night. So, how do you make someone excited about something as boring as saving? Great question. If you find a way, write a book. Honestly, I think it's different for everyone. For me it was like someone turned on a light. I was blind but then I saw. If he is a reader then I would suggest the following books in this order. If he makes it through those and has any argument at all against saving then write a book about him haha. Now I want to be clear, the other two answers above mine were also spot on. If you can't get him passionate about it then you need to take the initiative and start doing it yourself. I can't stress enough though that you both need to be engaged in order to do it quickly and efficiently. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "16747", "title": "", "text": "\"The previous answers make valid points regarding the risks, and why you can't reasonably compare trading for profit/loss to a roll of the die. This answer looks at the math instead. Your assumption: I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Is incorrect, for the reasons stated in other answers. However, the answer to your question: Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Is \"\"yes\"\". But only because the question is flawed. Consequently it's throwing people in all directions with their answers. But quite simply, in a truly random environment the worst case scenario, no matter how improbable, is that you lose over and over again until you have nothing left. This can happen in sequential rolls of the dice AND in trading securities/bonds/whatever. You could guess wrong for every roll of the die AND all of your stock picks could become worthless. Both outcomes result in $0 (assuming you do not gamble with credit). Tell me, which $0 is \"\"worse\"\"? Given the infinite number of plays that \"\"random\"\" implies, the chance of losing your entire bankroll exists in both scenarios, and that is enough by itself to make neither option \"\"worse\"\" than the other. Of course, the opposite is also true. You could only pick winners, with an unlimited upside potential, but again that could happen with either dice rolls or stock picks. It's just highly improbable. my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? Nope. This is where it all falls apart. Just because your chances of losing it all are similarly improbable, does not make you more likely to win with one method or the other. Regression to the mean, when given infinite, truly random outcomes, makes it impossible to \"\"have an edge\"\". Also, \"\"probabilistically\"\" isn't a word, but \"\"probably\"\" is.\"" }, { "docid": "171189", "title": "", "text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"" }, { "docid": "37146", "title": "", "text": "Your adviser cannot advise you if you don't tell him the whole picture. You don't have to invest everything with the adviser, you can just say that you have the cash allocation portion already invested elsewhere, and he can consider your portfolio based on that information. He works for you and you pay him for this work, why would you want him to provide a result that you know is worthless, because you didn't tell him what he needs to know?" }, { "docid": "517323", "title": "", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares." }, { "docid": "170665", "title": "", "text": "According to this Q&A by a Houston law professor: The law, however, is not designed to interfere with an individual's right to stop payment on a valid check because of a dispute with someone. If he didn't deliver as promised, you do not owe the money and have the right to stop payment. Assuming that you had enough money in the bank to cover the check, stopping payment is not a crime. I found several other pages essentially saying the same thing. All the usual disclaimers apply, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc. In particular, laws might vary by state. Basically, though, it doesn't seem there's any reason why you can't stop payment on the check just because you feel like it. If you then provide a cashier's check for the payment, your ex-partner will not really have anything to complain about. If you're worried about annoying him by doing this, that's a separate issue, but given the situation you describe, I don't see why you should be. If you feel he is being a pain in the neck, feel free to be a pain in the neck right back and force him to accept the payment in the manner you decide, instead of allowing him to string you along. Note two things: obviously if you have reason to believe the guy will sue you, you should act with caution. Also, I'm not suggesting withdrawing payment completely, only stopping the check and issuing a new payment that you don't have to wait on (e.g., cashier's check)." }, { "docid": "289801", "title": "", "text": "\"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"" }, { "docid": "288848", "title": "", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"" } ]

[ { "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": "595981", "title": "", "text": "Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation." }, { "docid": "19037", "title": "", "text": "No shit. That's not the point OP was making. He was saying they dont exist, so who would buy an electric car when the necessary infrastructure isn't in place yet? The same situation existed for gas when those cars first hit the road. Guess what? People built gas stations. It goes for any new tech that requires infrastructure. Thry build out together. Its not something thats insurmountable." }, { "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": "123291", "title": "", "text": "Just looking at CONED, [here is gas](https://www.coned.com/_external/cerates/documents/average_monthly_gas_bills.pdf) and [here is electric](https://www.coned.com/-/media/files/coned/documents/accountandbilling/about-your-bill-rates/average_monthly_electric_bills.pdf). You'll have to forgive me -- when it comes to NY, I'm more familiar with gas and with residential rates, so what I said doesn't hold true across the board for electric commercial customers. For residential electric, starting in 2009, delivery started outpacing commodity charges; by 2015 (not sure why they haven't posted 2016 data yet), $29 worth of electricity cost you $49 in delivery charges. For residential gas, the flip occurred in 2010 and was much more significant -- in 2016, a customer whose bill is just over $100 paid $75 for delivery and $25 for the actual gas (part of that is that gas prices are low, part of it is that delivery costs have gone up nearly 50%). Each utility is different, so the [gas info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/85297E80413DBEDB852581A6006261BE?OpenDocument) and the [electric info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/0B9E6D4CE48E09EE852578570055E27B?OpenDocument) if you're interested. I'm not sure about primers -- I haven't really looked for them -- but I know that many companies and brokers do have some materials on their websites. For electricity in particular, I'm much more familiar with Texas than New York, but a lot of the principles are the same: look at your bills and make sure you understand all the charges and what your usage/demand is (especially over the course of a year), look up the [utility tariff](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/1ABA5E2E4E08F72585257687006F3AB1?OpenDocument), and make sure everything lines up. I harp on demand charges (a charge based on your peak energy usage during any set interval of time -- 15 minutes in TX, not sure about NY) because that's where commercial customers can get stuck paying really high charges." }, { "docid": "471111", "title": "", "text": "\">Really? I kinda thought it had something to do with losing 2.6 million jobs in 2008. Now that's a lot of revenue gone! Oh also the bush tax cuts All the more reason to keep increase spending by 5-10% a year, right? How about we create an envionment that yields more jobs rather than increasing the taxes of those left? Because that worked so well for social security originally supported by 5-10 employees per 1 receiving benefits, now it's only supported by 2 employees per 1 receiving benefits-- ultra sustainable! >So almost 10% of our deficit? I'd say that's a good start. 10% of our deficit, so 1/4th the amount of DEBT INTEREST we'll pay this year? A drop in the bucket either way. Spending is the real culprit. >I do agree we spend way too much on the pentagon, but pretty sure that went up a lot without our two unfunded republican wars. And now we're in a half dozen active and secret conflicts; Afganistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Eygpt. All the more reason for Obama to IMMEDIATELY remove us from those wars. But he hasn't he has expanded them. And our military costs keep going up. It's not about \"\"this isn't the right time to withdrawl\"\" it's about his corporate masters being the same as the Bush corporate masters telling him to continue. It's about oil/gas and the pipelines and projection of power that comes with it. Obama has continued and expanded the same policies as Bush, he cannot hide behind, \"\"Well Bush was worse\"\", he can't say that because it isnt true. Infact we're killing more peasants in other countries than ever before--- just with military industrial complex built drones. >There's also the unfunded Bush Medicare prescription drug plan. Yep, that prevents the government from negotiating prices on prescriptions for a token $10 Billion rebate, but which will yield $10 Trillion in revenues over the next 15 years. Sounds like a great ROI while the costs of drugs is skyhigh in the US. So what did Obama do? He fed that industry another 30 million new customers without so much as any discount. The government purposely stays out of the negotiation of price. Why? Because the bill was written by insurance industry and healthcare industry executives like most bills are. Healthcare is nice, but its the COST of healthcare that is the issue. If the cost was more reasonable, you wouldnt even need insurance, but because they can charge $70 for a single pair of rubber gloves, when the market price on a BOX is $5-10 we can plainly see the cost of medical care in the US is bloated and we get much less than comparative countries. Obama is just like Bush, he has enriched the various industries. The only difference between bush and Obama are which industries are enriched. You'll notice I didn't mention enrichment of citizens because they are an afterthought. Obama only needs to SELL the program to citizens, he sold it we bought it. >You can't seriously think putting those people back in charge will lead to good things. No I don't think republicans or people like Bush or Romney are necessarily good for us either. The thing I have a problem with is that people like you think Obama is any different. He's not, new president, same as the old president. New speech writer, new cabinet (stuffed with corporate cronies and former lobbyists), but business as usual and marching orders from corporate and private masters.\"" }, { "docid": "437663", "title": "", "text": ">If I have a 200-300 mile range EV, then the only time I ever have to worry about the inconvenience of charging up is on a cross country trip. For the other 50 weeks of the year, I don't require the convenience of a gas station, other than to buy beer. As long as you plan ahead... a lot of people like the feeling of security they get knowing they can pop into a nearby gas station on a whim & get max range in a few minutes. Until they can do this with EVs, it will be a significant disadvantage in their eyes over gas-powered." }, { "docid": "428522", "title": "", "text": ">Many of the people who under-estimate TV do not realize the amount of money, talent, research, staff and infrastructure needed to produce top-level high-quality shows and programming. >It is easy to stream a TV show or movie AFTER it's been already produced and broadcast, but do you really think the internet will give us a Mad Men, LOST, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones? I highly doubt it, and that's a big reason why TV is here to stay. I agree, I don't think the industry will die. It'll definitely continue to undergo fundamental changes, but at the end of the day, they're still making content people want to pay for. So conglomerates like TWX, DIS, CBS, and VIA are probably not the way to play this. Maybe betting against the local broadcast stations would be a better bet, I think names like GCI own both local tv networks AND newspapers." }, { "docid": "110429", "title": "", "text": "So yes, changing the industry this dramaticallyAnd that would be great if they could get a car in they sub 20k class, and assuming the government continued to give energy credits for ev. Trump could shut that down (although why pick a fight with US auto makers?) That said, the point of these announcements is to set the stage for infrastructure. Let the oil companies know that in 10 years they will lose half their auto market, so they need to migrate their investments to fleet and jet fuels, chemicals and power generation, diversify assets and investments, etc. Sucks but definitely survivable, but yes, they will fight so 2023 will be more like 2033. Next of course is electronic filling stations, which is where the oil companies really need to invest in, as well as gain investment in the power grid (which will also need to be ramped up, especially in rural areas, many of which were not even prepared for air conditioning in all residences). and of course you have battery technology, which requires lithium and other rare earth metals (or ideally new organic based alternatives) and the concerns with crash/explosion/fire and toxic spills... Gas is the devil we know, batteries on a mammoth scale and the environmental impact with the number of serious crashes we have... So yes, don't get excited about what they are gonna do, but understand the implications of such an announcement." }, { "docid": "363186", "title": "", "text": "eallan already touched on this, but generally speaking there is a tendency in this country to lump unions together and put the shortcomings of one local or one unit or one member onto all of them. An example would be the issue of corruption; many people cry about rampant corruption in unions when in fact only somewhere between 1-2% of locals have ever had any corruption charges, whereas I'd be willing to bet that the corruption rate is much higher in the corporate world. > Honestly, I cant think of any reason for minimum wage paying jobs to have a union. If you think the wages are too low for cost of living then the minimum wage should be raised. These people have no special skills, little to no training, and usually no education. Genuine question: What reasons do you think someone would/could have for joining a union? Why would base pay/education/skill level of the job be a consideration? Just so we're on the same page: Collective bargaining came about because workers in certain areas were pissed-off enough that they realized that to improve their situation they had to come together as a group, because only as a group did they have any leverage. All workers have the right to collective bargaining, rights which were signed into law because pissed-off workers were doing it anyway, and the regulation of the practice helped smooth it out and drastically cut down on violence and debilitating drops in production. It takes quite a feeling of injustice and exploitation when not friends, not family, but colleagues, some of which may not even like each other, start seeing that they share common problems, and decide to tie the fate of their working lives to one another. And give up like 1-2% of their paychecks. Especially in a country with an individualistic culture like the US. So if workers at certain Wal-Marts feel like working conditions are that bad for them, then I can't see why they shouldn't organize." }, { "docid": "106324", "title": "", "text": "I don't know why stocks in some industries tend to have lower prices per share than others. It doesn't really matter much. Whether a company has 1,000,0000 shares selling for $100 each, or 10,000,000 shares selling for $10 each, either way the total value is the same. Companies generally like to keep the share price relatively low so that if someone wants to buy a small amount, they can. Like if the price was $10,000 per share, than an investor with less than $10,000 to put in that one stock would be priced out of the market. If it's $10, then if someone wants $10 they can buy one share, and if someone wants $10,000 they can buy 1000 shares. As to why energy stocks are volatile, I can think of several reasons. One, in our current world, energy is highly susceptible to politics. A lot of the world's energy comes from the Middle East, which is a notoriously unstable region. Any time there's conflict there, energy supplies from the region become uncertain. Oil-producing countries may embargo countries that they don't like. A war will, at the very least, interfere with transportation and shipping, and may result in oil wells being destroyed. Etc. Two, energy is consumed when you use it, and most consumers have very limited ability to stockpile. So you're constantly buying the energy you need as you need it. So if demand goes down, it is reflected immediately. Compare this to, say, clothing. Most people expect to keep the same clothes for years, wearing them repeatedly. (Hopefully washing them now and then!) So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile." }, { "docid": "392056", "title": "", "text": "I am glad they are going away. Malls are an environmental tragedy. 1)They are the product (or maybe even part of the cause) of suburban sprawl. They encourage car usage and, by virtue of their need for large open areas to be constructed, are often far from where most people work and live. As a result, patrons have to drive large distances from their houses/jobs to the shopping centers. 2) The [parking lots are tremendous waste of space and hugely damage the environment.](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/parking-environmental-impacts-development-policies-research-roundup) 3) Online shopping is much better for the environment as the product can be shipped directly to the consumer. 4) Once they are built and then closed, the space where the centers sat is basically abandoned and turns into blight. Depending on the businesses that were housed in the mall and the businesses that were supported by the mail (especially gas stations), these sites could be toxic. I am sure there are more reasons why malls are environmentally harmful, but those are a few off the top of my head." }, { "docid": "285803", "title": "", "text": "The price the provider charges you is the amount he would like to get for his services. Let's take an example, you do a blood test at a lab, and they charge you 1200.00$ If you have insurance, and the provider has a contract with that insurance (meaning 'they take them'), the contract limits what they can charge and what the will get. For the example, that might be 21.56$. This is what the insurance pays them (or what you pay them, if you have deductible). Note that if you have no insurance, you owe them 1200.00$. They are typically willing to negotiate that you only pay maybe 850.00$, but it still will be much higher than the insurance price. Why? The reason is that the insurance-agreed payment of 21.56$ does not cover their cost (but the insurance forces them to make that contract or basically be out of business). Let's say for example they need 26.56$ to make a living on it; so they lose 5.00$ on every insured customer. One in 235 customers has no insurance, and his price is calculated as 26.56+235*5.00 = ~1200.00$, so his bill covers the losses for all insured 'under-payers' (all numbers are examples made up to illustrate the math the provider does). My bloodwork typically comes between 800 and 1400, and gets reduced to around 20: so the numbers are not completely off. The ratio and concept works for doctors and hospitals the same, just not as significant a difference." }, { "docid": "411897", "title": "", "text": "\"A better question would be to ask \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge to use the bathroom?\"\", or \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge for parking?\"\". In America, either government regulation or the mall itself forbids charging for parking, or limits the amount that can be charged for parking. This tends to be more true in suburban areas where land is cheap, but less true downtown in cities. The nearest theater to me is in a mall that is also on a metro line. Those who arrive by metro to see the movie are effectively subsidizing those who arrive via automobile and park. I don't know of any place in America that charges to use the bathroom, but the practice is still common in Europe. I saw the second The Matrix film in Brussels, and had to pay to pee. I'm not sure why this isn't the case in the U.S. Maybe there are widespread regulations against this. Or maybe it's a cultural thing, that we would be so offended by this that we would never go back to the theater.\"" }, { "docid": "440261", "title": "", "text": "\">For IT departments internally billing is essential for managing expectations. Otherwise they are treated as an endless pool of free resources. It -- chargeback/internal billing -- can (and I have seen this in action) also work the opposite way; it can allow IT to \"\"tax\"\" other departments inordinately and continue to operate inefficiently. The devil is always in the details; and the chief problem with chargeback systems is when things are \"\"genericized\"\" (for example charging \"\"set rates\"\" to each department based on CPU count {regardless of whether one unit in one department is a high-power CAD station, or file-server, and the equivalent of a \"\"netbook\"\" in other departments} -- or likewise by the number of printers {regardless of type, charging a massive workgroup printer the same $500 per unit annual \"\"support\"\" cost as a label-printer that only cost $50 retail, etc.}) And likewise with the \"\"IT shouldn't actually charge-back labor\"\" -- you still create the \"\"endless pool of resources\"\" problem, just in the form of labor rather than equipment. Basically internal charge-back systems CAN function -- *if they are properly constructed, and PROPERLY adjusted to take into account different (and changing) costs* -- but far too many companies \"\"implement\"\" such a thing, and then let it fossilize (where it ends up creating the same kinds of unnecessary and troublesome distortions that it was purportedly put in place to solve).\"" }, { "docid": "549480", "title": "", "text": "\">There's tons of gas stations There have to be, because you can't fuel your car at home like an EV driver can. The only place fast-chargers are needed are along highways for people taking long trips. And that's exactly where they are. Tesla Superchargers are along all major highways, spaced so that drivers can get wherever they need to go. Sure, it's more than 5 minutes to charge up a car. But that's offset by spending NO time waiting for the other 90% of your daily driving. Just plug in when you get home, and you've got a full \"\"tank\"\" of electricity every morning.\"" }, { "docid": "285938", "title": "", "text": "Visually, it's nice. But the problem is actual usage. Apple maps does not work. As someone who has tried using it many times, it simply does not work. It can't find addresses that Google Maps finds with ease. That is what a map program needs to do. And it doesn't. It also is completely wrong for the typical New Yorker, which is what I am. It doesn't have public transportation built in. When zoomed out, it shows me gas stations, like I fucking need them. It also shows icons for chain restaurants that I could give a shit about... why does Burger King need a big ol' icon taking up 2 blocks? Who thought of this feature and didn't give me the option to turn it off or even configure it? Sorry... it is not a very well done app." }, { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "106371", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the key to this question is to think about how people tick. The underlying assumption in any decision that measures monetary value or other economic principles is that we're rational actors in a global marketplace. Life isn't a ledger or a taxi on a meter. If you have time on your hands or enjoy the act of driving when you run your errands, that diversion to save a dime on gas isn't a net loss, it just is. That may be a different story if you need to get your rental car returned so that you can fly home -- in that case, you're ok with getting hosed by the gas station strategically located between hotels and the airport. Our motivations are deeper than that. Some people get a feeling of satisfaction or security from always getting the \"\"best deal\"\". Some folks visit a particular gas station because the clerks are friendly or the coffee is good. Others want to pay more -- they buy \"\"premium\"\" gas from Exxon/Mobil because they are premium people who \"\"buy the best\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "456147", "title": "", "text": "It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3. In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website." } ]

[ { "docid": "549833", "title": "", "text": "Location, Location, Location. The closer to the highway, the more they can charge. People want to go less than a mile from the exit to get gas. Therefore they save time, but spend more money. That is understandable, so the gas station takes advantage of the situation." } ]

[ { "docid": "106324", "title": "", "text": "I don't know why stocks in some industries tend to have lower prices per share than others. It doesn't really matter much. Whether a company has 1,000,0000 shares selling for $100 each, or 10,000,000 shares selling for $10 each, either way the total value is the same. Companies generally like to keep the share price relatively low so that if someone wants to buy a small amount, they can. Like if the price was $10,000 per share, than an investor with less than $10,000 to put in that one stock would be priced out of the market. If it's $10, then if someone wants $10 they can buy one share, and if someone wants $10,000 they can buy 1000 shares. As to why energy stocks are volatile, I can think of several reasons. One, in our current world, energy is highly susceptible to politics. A lot of the world's energy comes from the Middle East, which is a notoriously unstable region. Any time there's conflict there, energy supplies from the region become uncertain. Oil-producing countries may embargo countries that they don't like. A war will, at the very least, interfere with transportation and shipping, and may result in oil wells being destroyed. Etc. Two, energy is consumed when you use it, and most consumers have very limited ability to stockpile. So you're constantly buying the energy you need as you need it. So if demand goes down, it is reflected immediately. Compare this to, say, clothing. Most people expect to keep the same clothes for years, wearing them repeatedly. (Hopefully washing them now and then!) So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile." }, { "docid": "338320", "title": "", "text": "They are private businesses, and they open as they want, quite the same as gas stations or supermarkets. You can open a fourth one, if you think there is money to be made. May not be a bad idea, if you know a bit about cyber security." }, { "docid": "260087", "title": "", "text": "Each company that has an account with the credit card network has to classify themselves as a particular type of business. The credit card company uses that classification to catagorize the transaction on your statement. If you buy a T-shirt at a grocery, amusement park, gas station, or resturant; the transaction will be labeled by the vendor type. Look at recent credit card statements, even if they are from different cards, to see how the stores you want to know about are classified." }, { "docid": "549480", "title": "", "text": "\">There's tons of gas stations There have to be, because you can't fuel your car at home like an EV driver can. The only place fast-chargers are needed are along highways for people taking long trips. And that's exactly where they are. Tesla Superchargers are along all major highways, spaced so that drivers can get wherever they need to go. Sure, it's more than 5 minutes to charge up a car. But that's offset by spending NO time waiting for the other 90% of your daily driving. Just plug in when you get home, and you've got a full \"\"tank\"\" of electricity every morning.\"" }, { "docid": "325564", "title": "", "text": "\"Real estate ownership doesn't work the same way in China as it does in the West. Some significant difference I see: * China doesn't have property tax, so empty apartments are treated as assets by individuals, no tax liability. * A lot of people buy 2nd/3rd home and not rent them out. Their purpose feels more like buying preferred stock - ownership with expectation of neighborhood (~company) would prosper, but no direct contribution to the neighborhood (~no voting in the company) * Local governments raise funds by developing landing into real estate. * Local government would collectivize old real estate for redevelopment, usually at some reasonable rate (tho less equitable in some \"\"corrupt\"\" areas) * Ownership is not permanent. It is on paper 50-70 years depending on the place. Not saying there aren't problems with this system, just that signals that would cause US real estate to collapse might not do the same for China. I do want to see someone run some social behavioral model about how those differences would play out. Source: my family owns 2 apartments in a 2nd-tier Chinese city.\"" }, { "docid": "595981", "title": "", "text": "Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation." }, { "docid": "437663", "title": "", "text": ">If I have a 200-300 mile range EV, then the only time I ever have to worry about the inconvenience of charging up is on a cross country trip. For the other 50 weeks of the year, I don't require the convenience of a gas station, other than to buy beer. As long as you plan ahead... a lot of people like the feeling of security they get knowing they can pop into a nearby gas station on a whim & get max range in a few minutes. Until they can do this with EVs, it will be a significant disadvantage in their eyes over gas-powered." }, { "docid": "493569", "title": "", "text": "Update, 2013: this product is no longer available. As of December 1, 2010, Travelex announced a product, the Travelex Cash Passport, which is chip-and-pin protected. You can buy it in the US and then load it up with either Euros or British Pounds. There are a few things to know about this: Right now, it is not available online at the Travelex website. You must purchase it in person at participating Travelex retail locations. I bought mine right downstairs from the Stack Overflow world headquarters! The fees that Travelex charges for foreign currency transactions will take your breath away. I purchased a £300 card for $547.15, which comes out to a 15% service charge. Travelex will give you better rates if you purchase larger amounts. There is a further 3% fee if you use a credit card (I used a debit card to avoid this). Think long and hard about whether to load it with Pounds or Euros. They charged me 5.5% above the interbank exchange rate to spend my Pound card in Euros. You get two cards, which is very convenient. You can refill the card on the web. Due to the high fees, the Chip and PIN Cash Passport is not a good idea for everyday transactions, for getting cash from an ATM, and certainly not for paying for big-ticket items like hotels. You're going to want to reserve it for purchasing things from those automated kiosks in Europe (especially gas stations, ticket machines in train stations, and toll booths) that will not work with a standard magnetic stripe card. The card worked perfectly buying tickets on the tube in London. I haven't had a chance to check it out in other countries." }, { "docid": "67731", "title": "", "text": "\"Property taxes, where they exist, are generally levied by cities, counties and other local-level administrative bodies like MUDs, and are the primary source of revenue at these levels of government. These taxes pay the lion's share of the expenses for basic services provided by a city or county: There are federal dollars, other revenue sources (State lottery revenues often go toward public schools for instance), and \"\"usage fees\"\" (vehicle registration, utility bills, toll roads) at play as well, but a lot of that money covers larger-scale infrastructure development (freeways/interstates) and specialized \"\"earmarks\"\" (political backscratching involving this bridge or that dam in a Congresscritter's home district, a few national initiatives from the President's budget like first-responder technology upgrades for improved disaster/terrorism readiness). Property taxes are the main funding for the day-to-day government operations at the most visible level to the average resident. The theory behind using a property tax instead of some other form of taxation (like income) is that the value of the property and the quality of services provided to the resident(s) of that property are interrelated; the property is valuable in part because the infrastructure is well-maintained and nearby schools/hospitals are good, and by the same token, affluent residents expect high-quality services. Property taxes are also easier to levy, because most of the work can be done by the tax assessor; monitor recent sale prices, do drive-bys through neighborhoods, come up with a number and send the resident the bill. That's opposed to sales taxes which businesses operating in the jurisdiction have to calculate, collect and turn over, or income taxes which require residents to fill out paperwork to calculate how much they owe. The justification is eminent domain. It's very simple; when you buy land in the U.S. and a State thereof, you are still a citizen and/or resident of that State and the U.S., and subject to their laws. You're not creating your own country when you buy a house. As such, the government charges you for the facilities and services they provide in your area and your State, which are then your privilege to use. Obviously roads aren't free; a one-mile stretch behind my house is costing the county $15 million to expand it from 2-lane to 4-lane. Here's the kicker; you've already been paying these taxes. You think your landlord's just going to take the property taxes for the whole apartment complex on the chin? He's out to make money, and doing that requires charging a sufficient amount to cover costs, including taxes he incurs. You just never see \"\"allocated property taxes\"\" as an item on your rent statement, just like you don't see \"\"allocated landowner mortgage\"\", \"\"allocated facilities maintenance\"\", \"\"allocated gross margin\"\" etc. You know you're getting shafted, paying someone else's financing with a little extra on the side to boot. That's why you want a house. Unfortunately, not being able to pay these taxes is a grim reality for some people, old and young, and government generally doesn't go easy on delinquent homeowners. After medical bills and mortgage delinquency, property tax delinquency is the number three reason for bankruptcy, and only a mortgage or property tax delinquency can cause your home to be seized and sold. Well that and using it for criminal enterprise, but unless you're running a meth lab in your half-million-dollar home or financing it with coke money I wouldn't worry about that score. Retirement planners figure property taxes into cost of living, and they do often advise a downgrade from the 2-story house you raised your children in to something smaller (for many reasons, including lower taxes). There really isn't a way to structure a completely \"\"pay-as-you-go\"\" metropolitan area, and you wouldn't want to live in it if there were. Imagine every strip of asphalt in the county being a toll road where your transponder (TollTag, EZ-Pass, etc) or license plate was scanned and you were billed at each intersection. In addition to being a huge invasion of privacy, the cost to maintain this network (and your cost to use it) would skyrocket. Imagine 911 asking for a credit card number before dispatching police, fire or EMS (Ambulance services already do bill on a per-event basis, but you'd be surprised how few people pay and how little power a county EMS has to enforce collection; without a property tax and Medicaid to cover the difference, EMS service could not be provided in most counties).\"" }, { "docid": "411897", "title": "", "text": "\"A better question would be to ask \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge to use the bathroom?\"\", or \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge for parking?\"\". In America, either government regulation or the mall itself forbids charging for parking, or limits the amount that can be charged for parking. This tends to be more true in suburban areas where land is cheap, but less true downtown in cities. The nearest theater to me is in a mall that is also on a metro line. Those who arrive by metro to see the movie are effectively subsidizing those who arrive via automobile and park. I don't know of any place in America that charges to use the bathroom, but the practice is still common in Europe. I saw the second The Matrix film in Brussels, and had to pay to pee. I'm not sure why this isn't the case in the U.S. Maybe there are widespread regulations against this. Or maybe it's a cultural thing, that we would be so offended by this that we would never go back to the theater.\"" }, { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "358137", "title": "", "text": "why not ask a fee only financial adviser? Contact a local adviser and ask how much they will charge to work through the process. The options aren't as complex as they seem. The general idea is to first figure out what you can afford each month. This is a generally straight forward calculation. Then figure out the costs that are specific to your area, e.g property taxes. Figure out how much of a down payment /closing costs you can gather. Then start with your local bank or credit union. The number of options for mortgages will not be as complex if you already know how much you can afford and how much cash you can bring to the transaction. A simple table can be easily created based on what you can afford each month, how much cash you have, and the rates currently available. The bank will have a way to estimate the costs of each option as part of the required disclosures. Another source of good info can be a highly regarded local real estate agent. Focus on one that will represent you as a purchaser. They want you to be able to buy a house. While they do have a bias, they want a commission, most of it is eliminated if you know how much you can afford before you meet with them. They will know all the government programs that can make the monthly costs or closing costs cheaper." }, { "docid": "335164", "title": "", "text": "\"My education on this topic at this age range was a little more free-form. We were given a weeklong project in the 6th grade, which I remember pretty clearly: Fast forward 6 years (we were 12). You are about to be kicked out of your parents' house with the clothes on your back, $1,000 cash in your pocket, your high school diploma, and a \"\"best of luck\"\" from your parents. That's it. Your mission is to not be homeless, starving and still wearing only the clothes on your back in 3 months. To do this, you will find an apartment, a job (you must meet the qualifications fresh out of high school with only your diploma; no college, no experience), and a means of transportation. Then, you'll build a budget that includes your rent, estimated utilities, gasoline (calculated based on today's prices, best-guess fuel mileage of the car, and 250% of the best-guess one-way distance between home and job), food (complete nutrition is not a must, but 2000cal/day is), toiletries, clothing, and anything else you want or need to spend your paycheck or nest egg on. Remember that the laundromat isn't free, and neither is buying the washer/dryer yourself. Remember most apartments aren't furnished but do have kitchen appliances, and you can't say you found anything on the side of the road. The end product of your work will be a narrative report of the first month of your new life, a budget for the full 3 months, plus a \"\"continuing\"\" budget for a typical month thereafter to prove you're not just lasting out the 3 months, and all supporting evidence for your numbers, from newspaper clippings to in-store mailers (the Internet and e-commerce were just catching on at the time, Craigslist and eBay didn't exist yet, and not everyone had home Internet to begin with). Extra Credit: Make your budget work with all applicable income and sales taxes. Extra Extra Credit: Have more than your original $1000 in the bank at the end of the 3 months, after the taxes in the Extra Credit. This is a pretty serious project for a 12-year-old. Not only were we looking through the classified ads and deciphering all the common abbreviations, we were were taking trips to the grocery store with shopping lists, the local Wal-Mart or Target, the mall, even Goodwill. Some students had photos of their local gas station's prices, to which someone pointed out that their new apartment would be on the other side of town where gas was more expensive (smart kid). Some students just couldn't make it work (usually the mistakes were to be expected of middle-class middle-schoolers, like finding a job babysitting and stretching that out full-time, only working one job, buying everything new from clothes to furniture, thinking you absolutely need convenience items you can do without, and/or trying to buy the same upscale car your dad takes to work), though most students were able to provide at least a plausible before-tax budget. A few made the extra credit work, which was a lot of extra credit, because not only were you filling out a 1040EZ for your estimated income taxes, you were also figuring FICA and Social Security taxes which even some adults don't know the rates for, and remember, no Internet. Given that the extra-extra credit required you to come out ahead after taxes (good luck), I can't remember that anyone got that far. The meta-lesson that we all learned? Life without a college education is rough.\"" }, { "docid": "428290", "title": "", "text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"" }, { "docid": "260638", "title": "", "text": "That's the gas station 7/11 and the like. But not the bodegas and other inner-city grocery stores that charge 3x the normal price for (often crappy) bread and eggs because there aren't many competitors when you live out on Avenue Q in Brooklyn, or in Northern, KY but don't have a car." }, { "docid": "582521", "title": "", "text": "If I have a 200-300 mile range EV, then the only time I ever have to worry about the inconvenience of charging up is on a cross country trip. For the other 50 weeks of the year, I don't require the convenience of a gas station, other than to buy beer." }, { "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": "285938", "title": "", "text": "Visually, it's nice. But the problem is actual usage. Apple maps does not work. As someone who has tried using it many times, it simply does not work. It can't find addresses that Google Maps finds with ease. That is what a map program needs to do. And it doesn't. It also is completely wrong for the typical New Yorker, which is what I am. It doesn't have public transportation built in. When zoomed out, it shows me gas stations, like I fucking need them. It also shows icons for chain restaurants that I could give a shit about... why does Burger King need a big ol' icon taking up 2 blocks? Who thought of this feature and didn't give me the option to turn it off or even configure it? Sorry... it is not a very well done app." }, { "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": "91545", "title": "", "text": "There are many factors. Most gas stations price their gas based on what it will cost them to replace it. So when their supplier raises the price that it charges the station the station typically raises its prices proportionality. The suppliers tend to have their own rates. The business needs to make a profit so the business sets the price where it feels it will make the most money. Some stations buy bargain gas. Many people say they find this gas to be just fine. Personally some stations gas seems to make my cars run much worse. I can say that my mileage can vary by as much as 4 miles to the gallon based on where I get my gas. So I pay more to go to those stations that consistently have provided me good gasoline. However higher prices do not necessarily mean better gas. We have a BP just down the street that seems to have bad gas while one about a half a mile away that I prefer because I have never had a bad tank of gas. Both are priced about the same. Also some localities have special tax zones. These are local taxes levied based on the location. We have 4 different zones here in Peoria IL (150k pop). That does not take into account the smaller cities around us." } ]

[ { "docid": "446555", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it is the debate here. The functional use case is that it takes seconds to plug in. Even if you added all the time I've spent \"\"on-the-go\"\" charging, which is very little, then the amount of time I've spent charging has been less than the amount of time I would have spent filling up on gas over the course of several years. Also, like I said in the comment, this is not just \"\"MY\"\" use case. You can ask other drivers about it, the vast majority will say they prefer charging now that they have experienced it. Look at Volts - most of their miles are done on electricity, and there are a lot of Volt drivers who use the term \"\"gas anxiety\"\" because they don't want to fill up with gas so they do everything they can not to let the engine turn on at all. And for another car example, Tesla installed a battery swapper which made the filling-up experience more \"\"gas-like,\"\" in that it took <5 minutes and cost about $50. Nobody used it. They instead plugged in at the free supercharger nearby, got out to stretch their legs, went to eat lunch, and came back to their cars and drove off. Heck, I've heard plenty of Tesla owners lament that their car charged *too quickly*, which meant they had to get up in the middle of lunch to go unplug it. Very few people will regularly \"\"need\"\" to charge en-route in something like a Bolt, Model 3 or Model S. Those very few people who routinely drive 300 miles in a day one-way, or roundtrip with very little stop at their destination with which they could charge, are a niche customer who does not need to be catered to at this moment in time. However, and I get this all the time, everyone on reddit thinks they're part of that niche. On a website full of people who talk about spending all their day on reddit, somehow these people get the time to spend driving 400 miles a day. Not saying you're doing that right now, but lots of people do it here. 95%+ of charge events will be normal, day-to-day charges where it takes no time, the \"\"on-the-go\"\" cases are few and far between. EV motorcycles are pretty reasonably priced, but it sounds like you've probably already done some research on them. Check out Zero if you haven't heard of them. Cool thing about them is the battery is small so you can charge it on 120v in a reasonable amount of time (overnight), and I've heard from motorcycle drivers that they even feel more safe on an EV because all those brain cycles you spend on shifting and clutching are freed up to spend on paying attention to the road which is full of cars that are trying to kill you. Also the Bolt is a fantastic car. Highly recommend it. edit: oh, and with your name, you should check out the Lightning LS218's results at Pike's Peak a few years ago. Beat the Ducati by 20 seconds ;-) https://www.wired.com/2013/07/lightning-pikes-peak-2013/\"" }, { "docid": "440527", "title": "", "text": "When using a debit card there are two limits that may be imposed on the use: the current balance and the maximum daily limit. If the banking institution limits your daily usage that may mean that on a particular day you may not be able to make a large purchase, even though you have money in the bank. Otherwise as long as you have funds in the account linked to the debit card you can make the transaction. The catch is that as soon as the transaction is sent to the bank one of two things happens: the money is immediately deducted from the account; or a hold equal to the the amount of the transaction is placed on the account. A hold is generally used when the transaction is done in two parts: the pre-scan at a restaurant, or gas station. The hold reduces the amount of available funds in the account. A hold or an immediate deduction limits the size of future transactions. To be able to make larger transactions you need to transfer more money into the account. There is no debit card transaction that you can do to artificially allow a larger transaction, unless the bank is not placing a hold or doing an immediate deduction. Because a debit card is linked to a bank account, some accounts have overdraft protection. This protection comes in two forms: they either transfer your money from another account, or they make a loan. Either way there can be costs involved." }, { "docid": "42569", "title": "", "text": "Family has owned a gas stations for 10+ years. Gas is a bitch to own and most retailers make about 20¢ a gallon profit not including insurance/repairs. Hard to find gas station pump parts along with the high cost of repairing it if it breaks. It's mainly used to attract customers inside the store because that's where you make the profit." }, { "docid": "437663", "title": "", "text": ">If I have a 200-300 mile range EV, then the only time I ever have to worry about the inconvenience of charging up is on a cross country trip. For the other 50 weeks of the year, I don't require the convenience of a gas station, other than to buy beer. As long as you plan ahead... a lot of people like the feeling of security they get knowing they can pop into a nearby gas station on a whim & get max range in a few minutes. Until they can do this with EVs, it will be a significant disadvantage in their eyes over gas-powered." }, { "docid": "247394", "title": "", "text": "It seems to me that oil will never again reach or exceed $100 a barrel. The rate at which we are abandoning fossil fuels means we will never ever run out of the stuff. Demand will continue to decrease, and electric cars will be the first cars that are owned by the people in emerging markets in the next decade. And in a decade from now, 90% of all new cars will be purely electric. Beyond that, Fusion research on multiple fronts (but not ITER - that will never ever produce a plan for a viable power station) points to total destruction of coal and gas as a fuel for power stations. And when they come online, you don't even need to build new power stations! All you do is build banks of reactors in the car park, hook up the steam pipes to the new reactors, and then bulldoze the old furnaces. Job done." }, { "docid": "338320", "title": "", "text": "They are private businesses, and they open as they want, quite the same as gas stations or supermarkets. You can open a fourth one, if you think there is money to be made. May not be a bad idea, if you know a bit about cyber security." }, { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "308604", "title": "", "text": "The D’Atlantis Aqua Park is Best Resorts For Picnic Near by Mumbai City. Most of peoples who visited our resort are from Mumbai or near by Mumbai. The D’Atlantis Aqua Park is located in serene locality of Navapur in Virar West, only 5 minutes from the beach. Nestled on the Western tip of Navapur village in Virar, D’Atlantis Aqua Park is grate for a beach side holiday. The popular area was once a small farming village and now visitors flock here for weekend getaways.The resort is near by Mumbai i.e Virar, you can also consider the resort is in Mumbai. The D’Atlantis Aqua Park is Best Resorts for picnic spot because we provides good quality of service and accommodation to guests. Guests enjoy the various thrilling slides at the D’Atlantis Aqua Park and its proximity to the beach side. D’Atlantis Aqua Park is easy accessible from virar railway stations. Transport charges are nominal. We provides best quality of services to our customers." }, { "docid": "392056", "title": "", "text": "I am glad they are going away. Malls are an environmental tragedy. 1)They are the product (or maybe even part of the cause) of suburban sprawl. They encourage car usage and, by virtue of their need for large open areas to be constructed, are often far from where most people work and live. As a result, patrons have to drive large distances from their houses/jobs to the shopping centers. 2) The [parking lots are tremendous waste of space and hugely damage the environment.](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/parking-environmental-impacts-development-policies-research-roundup) 3) Online shopping is much better for the environment as the product can be shipped directly to the consumer. 4) Once they are built and then closed, the space where the centers sat is basically abandoned and turns into blight. Depending on the businesses that were housed in the mall and the businesses that were supported by the mail (especially gas stations), these sites could be toxic. I am sure there are more reasons why malls are environmentally harmful, but those are a few off the top of my head." }, { "docid": "285803", "title": "", "text": "The price the provider charges you is the amount he would like to get for his services. Let's take an example, you do a blood test at a lab, and they charge you 1200.00$ If you have insurance, and the provider has a contract with that insurance (meaning 'they take them'), the contract limits what they can charge and what the will get. For the example, that might be 21.56$. This is what the insurance pays them (or what you pay them, if you have deductible). Note that if you have no insurance, you owe them 1200.00$. They are typically willing to negotiate that you only pay maybe 850.00$, but it still will be much higher than the insurance price. Why? The reason is that the insurance-agreed payment of 21.56$ does not cover their cost (but the insurance forces them to make that contract or basically be out of business). Let's say for example they need 26.56$ to make a living on it; so they lose 5.00$ on every insured customer. One in 235 customers has no insurance, and his price is calculated as 26.56+235*5.00 = ~1200.00$, so his bill covers the losses for all insured 'under-payers' (all numbers are examples made up to illustrate the math the provider does). My bloodwork typically comes between 800 and 1400, and gets reduced to around 20: so the numbers are not completely off. The ratio and concept works for doctors and hospitals the same, just not as significant a difference." }, { "docid": "595981", "title": "", "text": "Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation." }, { "docid": "549833", "title": "", "text": "Location, Location, Location. The closer to the highway, the more they can charge. People want to go less than a mile from the exit to get gas. Therefore they save time, but spend more money. That is understandable, so the gas station takes advantage of the situation." }, { "docid": "123291", "title": "", "text": "Just looking at CONED, [here is gas](https://www.coned.com/_external/cerates/documents/average_monthly_gas_bills.pdf) and [here is electric](https://www.coned.com/-/media/files/coned/documents/accountandbilling/about-your-bill-rates/average_monthly_electric_bills.pdf). You'll have to forgive me -- when it comes to NY, I'm more familiar with gas and with residential rates, so what I said doesn't hold true across the board for electric commercial customers. For residential electric, starting in 2009, delivery started outpacing commodity charges; by 2015 (not sure why they haven't posted 2016 data yet), $29 worth of electricity cost you $49 in delivery charges. For residential gas, the flip occurred in 2010 and was much more significant -- in 2016, a customer whose bill is just over $100 paid $75 for delivery and $25 for the actual gas (part of that is that gas prices are low, part of it is that delivery costs have gone up nearly 50%). Each utility is different, so the [gas info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/85297E80413DBEDB852581A6006261BE?OpenDocument) and the [electric info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/0B9E6D4CE48E09EE852578570055E27B?OpenDocument) if you're interested. I'm not sure about primers -- I haven't really looked for them -- but I know that many companies and brokers do have some materials on their websites. For electricity in particular, I'm much more familiar with Texas than New York, but a lot of the principles are the same: look at your bills and make sure you understand all the charges and what your usage/demand is (especially over the course of a year), look up the [utility tariff](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/1ABA5E2E4E08F72585257687006F3AB1?OpenDocument), and make sure everything lines up. I harp on demand charges (a charge based on your peak energy usage during any set interval of time -- 15 minutes in TX, not sure about NY) because that's where commercial customers can get stuck paying really high charges." }, { "docid": "263050", "title": "", "text": "\"I have some numbers to share that may help. I've been tracking my home's natural gas consumption in a spreadsheet for years. Much of that time I'd only been interested in the quantity used – to measure my home's efficiency after certain upgrades – but in 2006 I also started tracking the \"\"Gas Supply Charge\"\" costs from my local utility, Enbridge, in Ontario, Canada. My numbers are for the gas commodity only (i.e. excluding delivery and customer charges.) I've never been on a fixed-price contract, so the numbers are supposed to be reflective of market rates. However, the numbers do differ from real \"\"spot prices\"\" because Enbridge estimates gas costs up-front and then applies a \"\"gas cost adjustment\"\" at later dates if their estimate was wrong. Natural gas cost per cubic meter for Chris's home http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/6406/naturalgascosts3priorye.png Since 2006, natural gas prices have been generally falling. The last cost I have on file, from my November 2009 bill, is 12.9 cents per cubic meter – being ~20 cents gas supply rate, less gas cost adjustment of ~7 cents. My average cost over that nearly 4 year period, January 2006 through November 2009, was 38.4 cents per cubic meter. Considering the current 5-year fixed rate I found is about 29 cents per cubic meter, there is a substantial premium to locking in when compared to current market rates. However, one can see that during the last 4 years, market prices did substantially exceed that rate for quite some time. Furthermore, when I last looked at those 5-year fixed rates perhaps a year or more ago, I couldn't find a company charging less than 39 cents per cubic meter. So, contract rates have fallen as well. Consequently, if we are at a natural gas price low and the economy is to recover, I tend to agree with Cart's answer and suggest it could be a good time to consider a fixed-rate contract. But, do your own due diligence and read the fine print if you go for it. UPDATE: In the interest of full disclosure, shortly after I did my own research above, I signed up for my first ever fixed-rate natural gas contract. :-)\"" }, { "docid": "265142", "title": "", "text": "I like how companies' solution is basically to just have us work the damn register ourselves for free. Gas stations used to have people come out and pump your gas. Now that would just seem creepy and unnecessary. In 20 years, kids will think the same thing of cashiers." }, { "docid": "397608", "title": "", "text": "I contacted Stephen Fishman, J.D., the author of Home Business Tax Deductions, to let him know that this question was missing from his book. He was kind enough to send a reply. My original phrasing of the question: If your car is used for both business and personal use, and you deduct via the actual expense method, do trips to the mechanic, gas station, and auto parts store to service or repair the car count as business miles, personal miles, or part-business-part-personal miles? What about driving the newly-purchased car home from the dealership? And his response: Good question. I can find nothing about this in IRS publication or elsewhere. However, common sense would tell us that the cost of driving to make car repairs should be deductible. If you use your car for business, it is a business expense, just like transporting any other piece of business equipment for repairs is a business expense. This should be so whether you use the standard mileage rate or actual expense method. You should probably reduce the amount of your deduction by the percentage of personal use of the car during the year. The same goes for driving a car home from the dealer." }, { "docid": "159310", "title": "", "text": "I took the Greyhound home for Thanksgiving. It would normally be a 9 hour drive, but with stops the bus trip ended up being 13. There was more legroom than an airplane and the tickets cost less than gas would have, but my favorite part was the scheduling. I was able to work Wednesday and take an overnight bus. I actually slept pretty well during the 4-hour stretches between stations (I brought a flask full of scotch to make sure). Unfortunately, they kick you off the bus and make you wait for an hour in the loud, brightly-lit stations while they gas up / change drivers. On the way back, I got to hang out all the way through Sunday and still made it to work Monday morning. Overall, a much better experience than I was expecting." }, { "docid": "274800", "title": "", "text": "Even for your cross country trip, you will have super charging gas stations; or, the Tesla battery swap. In other words, your stop to refuel would be no longer than 2-20 minutes (depending on the method). Which isn't too bad if you're going cross country." }, { "docid": "482813", "title": "", "text": "There are many gas stations where I live that already have different prices if you pay for cash vs. credit. In addition, some small businesses are doing this as well. My wife bought a birthday cake from a bakery. If you paid with cash, you saved 5%." } ]

[ { "docid": "324411", "title": "", "text": "I only have anecdotal evidence here as members of my family used to own a grocery store / gas station, but they were often time charged much more to have the gasoline delivered to than many gas stations which were just a mile or two away (up to 15% more). Also depending upon the branding of the gas station, they are required to use certain distributors (i.e. if you are an Exxon gas station you can only use a few select vendors) which gave them less control of their final cost. All in all the gasoline often had smaller margins than items in the grocery store, which are already extremely low." } ]

[ { "docid": "42569", "title": "", "text": "Family has owned a gas stations for 10+ years. Gas is a bitch to own and most retailers make about 20¢ a gallon profit not including insurance/repairs. Hard to find gas station pump parts along with the high cost of repairing it if it breaks. It's mainly used to attract customers inside the store because that's where you make the profit." }, { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "392056", "title": "", "text": "I am glad they are going away. Malls are an environmental tragedy. 1)They are the product (or maybe even part of the cause) of suburban sprawl. They encourage car usage and, by virtue of their need for large open areas to be constructed, are often far from where most people work and live. As a result, patrons have to drive large distances from their houses/jobs to the shopping centers. 2) The [parking lots are tremendous waste of space and hugely damage the environment.](https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/parking-environmental-impacts-development-policies-research-roundup) 3) Online shopping is much better for the environment as the product can be shipped directly to the consumer. 4) Once they are built and then closed, the space where the centers sat is basically abandoned and turns into blight. Depending on the businesses that were housed in the mall and the businesses that were supported by the mail (especially gas stations), these sites could be toxic. I am sure there are more reasons why malls are environmentally harmful, but those are a few off the top of my head." }, { "docid": "411897", "title": "", "text": "\"A better question would be to ask \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge to use the bathroom?\"\", or \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge for parking?\"\". In America, either government regulation or the mall itself forbids charging for parking, or limits the amount that can be charged for parking. This tends to be more true in suburban areas where land is cheap, but less true downtown in cities. The nearest theater to me is in a mall that is also on a metro line. Those who arrive by metro to see the movie are effectively subsidizing those who arrive via automobile and park. I don't know of any place in America that charges to use the bathroom, but the practice is still common in Europe. I saw the second The Matrix film in Brussels, and had to pay to pee. I'm not sure why this isn't the case in the U.S. Maybe there are widespread regulations against this. Or maybe it's a cultural thing, that we would be so offended by this that we would never go back to the theater.\"" }, { "docid": "358137", "title": "", "text": "why not ask a fee only financial adviser? Contact a local adviser and ask how much they will charge to work through the process. The options aren't as complex as they seem. The general idea is to first figure out what you can afford each month. This is a generally straight forward calculation. Then figure out the costs that are specific to your area, e.g property taxes. Figure out how much of a down payment /closing costs you can gather. Then start with your local bank or credit union. The number of options for mortgages will not be as complex if you already know how much you can afford and how much cash you can bring to the transaction. A simple table can be easily created based on what you can afford each month, how much cash you have, and the rates currently available. The bank will have a way to estimate the costs of each option as part of the required disclosures. Another source of good info can be a highly regarded local real estate agent. Focus on one that will represent you as a purchaser. They want you to be able to buy a house. While they do have a bias, they want a commission, most of it is eliminated if you know how much you can afford before you meet with them. They will know all the government programs that can make the monthly costs or closing costs cheaper." }, { "docid": "24344", "title": "", "text": "\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"" }, { "docid": "161667", "title": "", "text": "This kind of questions keeps repeating itself on this site and the answer is generally it doesn't matter. As you said yourself, there are costs either way, and these costs are comparable. Generally, merchant fees differ tremendously between the different kinds of merchants, and while gas stations and video rentals may pay up to 5% and even more, charitable organizations and community services are usually not considered as high fraud risk operation and are charged much lower fees. Either way, paying employees, managing cash/check deposits or paying merchant fees is part of the charity operational expenses. Together with maintaining offices, postal office boxes, office supplies, postage expenses and formal stationary and envelopes needed for physical donations handling. I would guess that if the charity's majority of donations come on-line as credit card/paypal payments - check handling will be more expensive. So I suggest you take the route you consider majority of donors pay - that would be the cheapest for them to handle. I would guess, credit cards being the most convenient - would be the way to go." }, { "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": "335164", "title": "", "text": "\"My education on this topic at this age range was a little more free-form. We were given a weeklong project in the 6th grade, which I remember pretty clearly: Fast forward 6 years (we were 12). You are about to be kicked out of your parents' house with the clothes on your back, $1,000 cash in your pocket, your high school diploma, and a \"\"best of luck\"\" from your parents. That's it. Your mission is to not be homeless, starving and still wearing only the clothes on your back in 3 months. To do this, you will find an apartment, a job (you must meet the qualifications fresh out of high school with only your diploma; no college, no experience), and a means of transportation. Then, you'll build a budget that includes your rent, estimated utilities, gasoline (calculated based on today's prices, best-guess fuel mileage of the car, and 250% of the best-guess one-way distance between home and job), food (complete nutrition is not a must, but 2000cal/day is), toiletries, clothing, and anything else you want or need to spend your paycheck or nest egg on. Remember that the laundromat isn't free, and neither is buying the washer/dryer yourself. Remember most apartments aren't furnished but do have kitchen appliances, and you can't say you found anything on the side of the road. The end product of your work will be a narrative report of the first month of your new life, a budget for the full 3 months, plus a \"\"continuing\"\" budget for a typical month thereafter to prove you're not just lasting out the 3 months, and all supporting evidence for your numbers, from newspaper clippings to in-store mailers (the Internet and e-commerce were just catching on at the time, Craigslist and eBay didn't exist yet, and not everyone had home Internet to begin with). Extra Credit: Make your budget work with all applicable income and sales taxes. Extra Extra Credit: Have more than your original $1000 in the bank at the end of the 3 months, after the taxes in the Extra Credit. This is a pretty serious project for a 12-year-old. Not only were we looking through the classified ads and deciphering all the common abbreviations, we were were taking trips to the grocery store with shopping lists, the local Wal-Mart or Target, the mall, even Goodwill. Some students had photos of their local gas station's prices, to which someone pointed out that their new apartment would be on the other side of town where gas was more expensive (smart kid). Some students just couldn't make it work (usually the mistakes were to be expected of middle-class middle-schoolers, like finding a job babysitting and stretching that out full-time, only working one job, buying everything new from clothes to furniture, thinking you absolutely need convenience items you can do without, and/or trying to buy the same upscale car your dad takes to work), though most students were able to provide at least a plausible before-tax budget. A few made the extra credit work, which was a lot of extra credit, because not only were you filling out a 1040EZ for your estimated income taxes, you were also figuring FICA and Social Security taxes which even some adults don't know the rates for, and remember, no Internet. Given that the extra-extra credit required you to come out ahead after taxes (good luck), I can't remember that anyone got that far. The meta-lesson that we all learned? Life without a college education is rough.\"" }, { "docid": "167951", "title": "", "text": "\"No they won't; EVs are more than \"\"a few years\"\" from being the majority of cars on the road. And even then, what's to stop Oregon/Jersey from requiring an attendant from plugging your car into the recharging station? It's not like there's a valid reason for gas station attendants other than artificially increasing the number of the jobs.\"" }, { "docid": "407455", "title": "", "text": "One factor I haven't seen mentioned is volume. Suppliers will charge a slightly lower price to the station if they buy in full tanker truck loads instead of smaller quantities. Where I am this is probably still the largest factor in price spread with all newer bigger stations being 20-30 cents cheaper than the old small ones (often a repair shop with 2 pumps out front); the only reason it's slowly becoming less pronounced is that the old small stations are steadily closing up as their tanks fail leak inspections because they don't sell enough gas to justify repair and replacement." }, { "docid": "456147", "title": "", "text": "It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3. In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website." }, { "docid": "507385", "title": "", "text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada." }, { "docid": "224031", "title": "", "text": "Be glad you don't live in the Pacific Northwest. We're still recovering from a refinery shut down that sent our gas prices to $4.30/gallon while the rest of the nation was at $3.50/gallon. Our gas prices are still higher than US average at $3.70/gallon. Some gas stations are still charging $3.90+ here." }, { "docid": "274800", "title": "", "text": "Even for your cross country trip, you will have super charging gas stations; or, the Tesla battery swap. In other words, your stop to refuel would be no longer than 2-20 minutes (depending on the method). Which isn't too bad if you're going cross country." }, { "docid": "495710", "title": "", "text": "\"Hi there, I'm a Tesla owner. I think, for the Model S and X segment currently buying cars, you're right. Environmentalism isn't the first and foremost thing in their mind. However, that isn't to say being environmentally conscious isn't a credit they should receive for their purchase, because other informing factors, like charging at home instead of needing to refuel, is a perk AND it reduces oil/gas usage. I didn't buy my car to \"\"lower my carbon footprint\"\", as buying an EV doesn't necessarily do so in the big picture. I do, however, LOVE the fact I can charge my car at home and never visit a gas station. Every day, I get in my car with a \"\"full tank\"\", and I'm one less paying customer at the pump. As far as a status symbol, for me, it's the opposite. I don't want a showy, iconic vehicle that people will gawk at me over. I'm fairly low key, I'd rather not have the attention. I just needed/wanted a car with great interior cargo space, but was an electric vehicle I could charge at home. The Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf, Fiat 500e, and other EV options didn't fit the bill for me. Also, and most importantly, I wanted a vehicle that's future proofed (at least for a few years) to offer full self driving capability the moment it was allowed. Tesla became the icon for offering attractive electric vehicles at a time when most available options looked phoned in. Remember what you said in your first post: \"\"$500,000,000 loan for a car they've never seen and many won't receive for well over a year?\"\" A lot of people, myself included, never saw the \"\"official prototype\"\" until after we made our reservations on March 31, 2016. So the notion that it's purely an icon seems incomplete. I will say this, though: as soon as other auto makers take the EV market seriously, and design cars that actually look attractive, I think you'll see the Tesla demand drop for those who are looking for EV options pure and simple. I think, in the next few years, as more EV makers step up, what will differentiate the vehicles is the underlying tech in the car first and foremost, closely followed by design aesthetic. Tesla will retain buyers if they beat everyone to market with an available, fully self-driving capable vehicle, but they'll see some of that market shift away if other makers break in.\"" }, { "docid": "396343", "title": "", "text": "It will be interesting to see how gas station employment is affected by oil demand and EV sales. Bloomberg thinks EV adoption will crash oil prices by 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/ That won't create a huge change in station employment, but will affect oil company profitability." }, { "docid": "404833", "title": "", "text": "I actually just did that with my Chase Freedom card. They rotate categories every 3 months, and from April-June it was 5% back at grocery stores. So I bought a ton of gas cards and got my 5% back. Next I figured out I would be clever and buy a ton of store gift cards (grocery gift cards) right at the end of the quarter, then use those in the future to purchase gas cards. Well, I just tried that a couple days ago and discovered the store refuses to sell a gift card if you're paying with a gift card! So now I'm stuck with $1,000 in grocery cards until I use them in actual grocery purchases haha One of the things about this grocery store is they partner with a gas station on their rewards program. They offer 10 cents off a gallon with every $100 spent in store, and they double it to 20 cents off a gallon if you buy $100 in gift cards. Then on the back of the receipt is a coupon for 10 cents off per gallon -- which they double on Tuesdays. Unfortunately I think I'm one of the only people that takes this much advantage of the program :-/ Side note: I actually just changed the billing cycle of my Chase Freedom card to end on the 24th of the month. That way I can charge a bunch of rewards in the final 6-7 days of the quarter. And if I have a $0 balance on the 24th, my bill isn't due for 7 weeks -- interest free! And Chase Freedom has never cared if you purchase gift cards with their quarterly rewards program. I also gave them a courtesy email giving the specific store and $$$ amount that was going to be charged, and of course they still called me with a 'fraud alert'..." }, { "docid": "448225", "title": "", "text": "It may seem very simple on its face but you don't know the merchant's agreement. You don't know who is providing the processing equipment. You don't know a lot of things. You know that Visa, Mastercard, Discover, Amex and others have network requirements and agreements. You know that laws have been changed to allow merchant surcharges (previously it was contracts that prohibited surcharges, not laws). That gas station, or that pizza parlor, or any other merchant doesn't have a direct relationship with Visa or Mastercard; it has an agreement with a bank or other processing entity. The issue here, is whom do you even call? And what would you gain? Find out what bank is contracted for that particular equipment and file a complaint that the merchant charged you $0.35? Maybe the merchant agreement allows surcharges up to state and local maximums? You don't know the terms of their agreement. Calling around to figure out what parties are involved to understand the terms of their agreement is a waste of time, like you said you can just go across the street if it's so offensive to you. Or just carry a little cash. If that's not the answer you're looking for, here's one for you: There is no practical recourse." } ]

[ { "docid": "114417", "title": "", "text": "When I ran a gas station, our price was largely set by our neighbors-- the other gas stations in the area. We couldn't go below the current cost of replacement gas, but other than that we wanted to be at .05 over the average. (We got away with charging more because we were the last station on a major road.) Everybody else did the same thing. Also, we only set prices once a day, early in the morning before the commuter rush. Changing prices while somebody is pumping gas Was Not Done, for fairly obvious reasons. So, you'd get these ripples of price-changing, as one station changed its price, and then all its neighbors would react to that the next day, and then THEIR neighbors would change the day after that, and so on." } ]

[ { "docid": "106371", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the key to this question is to think about how people tick. The underlying assumption in any decision that measures monetary value or other economic principles is that we're rational actors in a global marketplace. Life isn't a ledger or a taxi on a meter. If you have time on your hands or enjoy the act of driving when you run your errands, that diversion to save a dime on gas isn't a net loss, it just is. That may be a different story if you need to get your rental car returned so that you can fly home -- in that case, you're ok with getting hosed by the gas station strategically located between hotels and the airport. Our motivations are deeper than that. Some people get a feeling of satisfaction or security from always getting the \"\"best deal\"\". Some folks visit a particular gas station because the clerks are friendly or the coffee is good. Others want to pay more -- they buy \"\"premium\"\" gas from Exxon/Mobil because they are premium people who \"\"buy the best\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "549833", "title": "", "text": "Location, Location, Location. The closer to the highway, the more they can charge. People want to go less than a mile from the exit to get gas. Therefore they save time, but spend more money. That is understandable, so the gas station takes advantage of the situation." }, { "docid": "308604", "title": "", "text": "The D’Atlantis Aqua Park is Best Resorts For Picnic Near by Mumbai City. Most of peoples who visited our resort are from Mumbai or near by Mumbai. The D’Atlantis Aqua Park is located in serene locality of Navapur in Virar West, only 5 minutes from the beach. Nestled on the Western tip of Navapur village in Virar, D’Atlantis Aqua Park is grate for a beach side holiday. The popular area was once a small farming village and now visitors flock here for weekend getaways.The resort is near by Mumbai i.e Virar, you can also consider the resort is in Mumbai. The D’Atlantis Aqua Park is Best Resorts for picnic spot because we provides good quality of service and accommodation to guests. Guests enjoy the various thrilling slides at the D’Atlantis Aqua Park and its proximity to the beach side. D’Atlantis Aqua Park is easy accessible from virar railway stations. Transport charges are nominal. We provides best quality of services to our customers." }, { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "363186", "title": "", "text": "eallan already touched on this, but generally speaking there is a tendency in this country to lump unions together and put the shortcomings of one local or one unit or one member onto all of them. An example would be the issue of corruption; many people cry about rampant corruption in unions when in fact only somewhere between 1-2% of locals have ever had any corruption charges, whereas I'd be willing to bet that the corruption rate is much higher in the corporate world. > Honestly, I cant think of any reason for minimum wage paying jobs to have a union. If you think the wages are too low for cost of living then the minimum wage should be raised. These people have no special skills, little to no training, and usually no education. Genuine question: What reasons do you think someone would/could have for joining a union? Why would base pay/education/skill level of the job be a consideration? Just so we're on the same page: Collective bargaining came about because workers in certain areas were pissed-off enough that they realized that to improve their situation they had to come together as a group, because only as a group did they have any leverage. All workers have the right to collective bargaining, rights which were signed into law because pissed-off workers were doing it anyway, and the regulation of the practice helped smooth it out and drastically cut down on violence and debilitating drops in production. It takes quite a feeling of injustice and exploitation when not friends, not family, but colleagues, some of which may not even like each other, start seeing that they share common problems, and decide to tie the fate of their working lives to one another. And give up like 1-2% of their paychecks. Especially in a country with an individualistic culture like the US. So if workers at certain Wal-Marts feel like working conditions are that bad for them, then I can't see why they shouldn't organize." }, { "docid": "582521", "title": "", "text": "If I have a 200-300 mile range EV, then the only time I ever have to worry about the inconvenience of charging up is on a cross country trip. For the other 50 weeks of the year, I don't require the convenience of a gas station, other than to buy beer." }, { "docid": "123291", "title": "", "text": "Just looking at CONED, [here is gas](https://www.coned.com/_external/cerates/documents/average_monthly_gas_bills.pdf) and [here is electric](https://www.coned.com/-/media/files/coned/documents/accountandbilling/about-your-bill-rates/average_monthly_electric_bills.pdf). You'll have to forgive me -- when it comes to NY, I'm more familiar with gas and with residential rates, so what I said doesn't hold true across the board for electric commercial customers. For residential electric, starting in 2009, delivery started outpacing commodity charges; by 2015 (not sure why they haven't posted 2016 data yet), $29 worth of electricity cost you $49 in delivery charges. For residential gas, the flip occurred in 2010 and was much more significant -- in 2016, a customer whose bill is just over $100 paid $75 for delivery and $25 for the actual gas (part of that is that gas prices are low, part of it is that delivery costs have gone up nearly 50%). Each utility is different, so the [gas info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/85297E80413DBEDB852581A6006261BE?OpenDocument) and the [electric info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/0B9E6D4CE48E09EE852578570055E27B?OpenDocument) if you're interested. I'm not sure about primers -- I haven't really looked for them -- but I know that many companies and brokers do have some materials on their websites. For electricity in particular, I'm much more familiar with Texas than New York, but a lot of the principles are the same: look at your bills and make sure you understand all the charges and what your usage/demand is (especially over the course of a year), look up the [utility tariff](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/1ABA5E2E4E08F72585257687006F3AB1?OpenDocument), and make sure everything lines up. I harp on demand charges (a charge based on your peak energy usage during any set interval of time -- 15 minutes in TX, not sure about NY) because that's where commercial customers can get stuck paying really high charges." }, { "docid": "270994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm surprised at the tone of the answers to this question! Trading with insider information is corruption and encourages fraud. As in many areas, there's an ethical line where behavior the gap between \"\"ok\"\" and \"\"illegal\"\" or unethical is thin. The classic local government insider information example is when the local councilman finds out that a highway exit is being constructed in an area that consists mostly of farmland. Knowing this, he buys out the farmers at what they think is a premium, and turns around for 10x profit a few months later. In that context, do you think that the councilman acting on that insider information is committing a crime or ethical lapse? Most people say yes. Even in this case, the line is thin. If the same councilman has his finger on the pulse of growth patterns in the area, and realizes that the terrain makes a certain area a prime candiate for a highway and exit, buying up land would not be criminal -- but it would be risky as it creates a perception that he is abusing his position.\"" }, { "docid": "63528", "title": "", "text": "That's not entirely true for Oregon. It's illegal to pump your own gas in Oregon so every gas station has to employ at least one attendant. Don't think it amounts to $0.30 per gallon but it definitely raises the price of gas being forced to pay an adult to complete a task simple enough for a child." }, { "docid": "24222", "title": "", "text": "High water table next to a river may be a serious flood risk - and flood insurance on a buried multi thousand gallon tank of gas may be prohibitively expensive. Everything I've read and experienced about gas station is that you don't make money off the gas - as in the margin is almost nill. Also in 10-20 years what percentage of cars on the road will be electric?" }, { "docid": "260087", "title": "", "text": "Each company that has an account with the credit card network has to classify themselves as a particular type of business. The credit card company uses that classification to catagorize the transaction on your statement. If you buy a T-shirt at a grocery, amusement park, gas station, or resturant; the transaction will be labeled by the vendor type. Look at recent credit card statements, even if they are from different cards, to see how the stores you want to know about are classified." }, { "docid": "260638", "title": "", "text": "That's the gas station 7/11 and the like. But not the bodegas and other inner-city grocery stores that charge 3x the normal price for (often crappy) bread and eggs because there aren't many competitors when you live out on Avenue Q in Brooklyn, or in Northern, KY but don't have a car." }, { "docid": "285803", "title": "", "text": "The price the provider charges you is the amount he would like to get for his services. Let's take an example, you do a blood test at a lab, and they charge you 1200.00$ If you have insurance, and the provider has a contract with that insurance (meaning 'they take them'), the contract limits what they can charge and what the will get. For the example, that might be 21.56$. This is what the insurance pays them (or what you pay them, if you have deductible). Note that if you have no insurance, you owe them 1200.00$. They are typically willing to negotiate that you only pay maybe 850.00$, but it still will be much higher than the insurance price. Why? The reason is that the insurance-agreed payment of 21.56$ does not cover their cost (but the insurance forces them to make that contract or basically be out of business). Let's say for example they need 26.56$ to make a living on it; so they lose 5.00$ on every insured customer. One in 235 customers has no insurance, and his price is calculated as 26.56+235*5.00 = ~1200.00$, so his bill covers the losses for all insured 'under-payers' (all numbers are examples made up to illustrate the math the provider does). My bloodwork typically comes between 800 and 1400, and gets reduced to around 20: so the numbers are not completely off. The ratio and concept works for doctors and hospitals the same, just not as significant a difference." }, { "docid": "224031", "title": "", "text": "Be glad you don't live in the Pacific Northwest. We're still recovering from a refinery shut down that sent our gas prices to $4.30/gallon while the rest of the nation was at $3.50/gallon. Our gas prices are still higher than US average at $3.70/gallon. Some gas stations are still charging $3.90+ here." }, { "docid": "448225", "title": "", "text": "It may seem very simple on its face but you don't know the merchant's agreement. You don't know who is providing the processing equipment. You don't know a lot of things. You know that Visa, Mastercard, Discover, Amex and others have network requirements and agreements. You know that laws have been changed to allow merchant surcharges (previously it was contracts that prohibited surcharges, not laws). That gas station, or that pizza parlor, or any other merchant doesn't have a direct relationship with Visa or Mastercard; it has an agreement with a bank or other processing entity. The issue here, is whom do you even call? And what would you gain? Find out what bank is contracted for that particular equipment and file a complaint that the merchant charged you $0.35? Maybe the merchant agreement allows surcharges up to state and local maximums? You don't know the terms of their agreement. Calling around to figure out what parties are involved to understand the terms of their agreement is a waste of time, like you said you can just go across the street if it's so offensive to you. Or just carry a little cash. If that's not the answer you're looking for, here's one for you: There is no practical recourse." }, { "docid": "482813", "title": "", "text": "There are many gas stations where I live that already have different prices if you pay for cash vs. credit. In addition, some small businesses are doing this as well. My wife bought a birthday cake from a bakery. If you paid with cash, you saved 5%." }, { "docid": "167951", "title": "", "text": "\"No they won't; EVs are more than \"\"a few years\"\" from being the majority of cars on the road. And even then, what's to stop Oregon/Jersey from requiring an attendant from plugging your car into the recharging station? It's not like there's a valid reason for gas station attendants other than artificially increasing the number of the jobs.\"" }, { "docid": "335164", "title": "", "text": "\"My education on this topic at this age range was a little more free-form. We were given a weeklong project in the 6th grade, which I remember pretty clearly: Fast forward 6 years (we were 12). You are about to be kicked out of your parents' house with the clothes on your back, $1,000 cash in your pocket, your high school diploma, and a \"\"best of luck\"\" from your parents. That's it. Your mission is to not be homeless, starving and still wearing only the clothes on your back in 3 months. To do this, you will find an apartment, a job (you must meet the qualifications fresh out of high school with only your diploma; no college, no experience), and a means of transportation. Then, you'll build a budget that includes your rent, estimated utilities, gasoline (calculated based on today's prices, best-guess fuel mileage of the car, and 250% of the best-guess one-way distance between home and job), food (complete nutrition is not a must, but 2000cal/day is), toiletries, clothing, and anything else you want or need to spend your paycheck or nest egg on. Remember that the laundromat isn't free, and neither is buying the washer/dryer yourself. Remember most apartments aren't furnished but do have kitchen appliances, and you can't say you found anything on the side of the road. The end product of your work will be a narrative report of the first month of your new life, a budget for the full 3 months, plus a \"\"continuing\"\" budget for a typical month thereafter to prove you're not just lasting out the 3 months, and all supporting evidence for your numbers, from newspaper clippings to in-store mailers (the Internet and e-commerce were just catching on at the time, Craigslist and eBay didn't exist yet, and not everyone had home Internet to begin with). Extra Credit: Make your budget work with all applicable income and sales taxes. Extra Extra Credit: Have more than your original $1000 in the bank at the end of the 3 months, after the taxes in the Extra Credit. This is a pretty serious project for a 12-year-old. Not only were we looking through the classified ads and deciphering all the common abbreviations, we were were taking trips to the grocery store with shopping lists, the local Wal-Mart or Target, the mall, even Goodwill. Some students had photos of their local gas station's prices, to which someone pointed out that their new apartment would be on the other side of town where gas was more expensive (smart kid). Some students just couldn't make it work (usually the mistakes were to be expected of middle-class middle-schoolers, like finding a job babysitting and stretching that out full-time, only working one job, buying everything new from clothes to furniture, thinking you absolutely need convenience items you can do without, and/or trying to buy the same upscale car your dad takes to work), though most students were able to provide at least a plausible before-tax budget. A few made the extra credit work, which was a lot of extra credit, because not only were you filling out a 1040EZ for your estimated income taxes, you were also figuring FICA and Social Security taxes which even some adults don't know the rates for, and remember, no Internet. Given that the extra-extra credit required you to come out ahead after taxes (good luck), I can't remember that anyone got that far. The meta-lesson that we all learned? Life without a college education is rough.\"" }, { "docid": "340202", "title": "", "text": ">The issue I had with it is long distances. Well, you need fast-chargers to travel long distances. Tesla has these along all major highways. For example, I make regular trips to Lake Michigan every summer, about a 250-mile trip. There are two Superchargers on my route. I will plan on hitting one of them. But right now I have to plan on hitting a gas station along the way. So it doesn't seem that different to me. You're going to point out that takes longer than fueling with gas. Yes it does,typically about a half-hour. I accept this because I save so much fueling time for the rest of my driving, when I can fuel up at home. You might not think that's a fair trade. I do. That's why I like EVs and you don't." } ]

[ { "docid": "407455", "title": "", "text": "One factor I haven't seen mentioned is volume. Suppliers will charge a slightly lower price to the station if they buy in full tanker truck loads instead of smaller quantities. Where I am this is probably still the largest factor in price spread with all newer bigger stations being 20-30 cents cheaper than the old small ones (often a repair shop with 2 pumps out front); the only reason it's slowly becoming less pronounced is that the old small stations are steadily closing up as their tanks fail leak inspections because they don't sell enough gas to justify repair and replacement." } ]

[ { "docid": "358137", "title": "", "text": "why not ask a fee only financial adviser? Contact a local adviser and ask how much they will charge to work through the process. The options aren't as complex as they seem. The general idea is to first figure out what you can afford each month. This is a generally straight forward calculation. Then figure out the costs that are specific to your area, e.g property taxes. Figure out how much of a down payment /closing costs you can gather. Then start with your local bank or credit union. The number of options for mortgages will not be as complex if you already know how much you can afford and how much cash you can bring to the transaction. A simple table can be easily created based on what you can afford each month, how much cash you have, and the rates currently available. The bank will have a way to estimate the costs of each option as part of the required disclosures. Another source of good info can be a highly regarded local real estate agent. Focus on one that will represent you as a purchaser. They want you to be able to buy a house. While they do have a bias, they want a commission, most of it is eliminated if you know how much you can afford before you meet with them. They will know all the government programs that can make the monthly costs or closing costs cheaper." }, { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "440527", "title": "", "text": "When using a debit card there are two limits that may be imposed on the use: the current balance and the maximum daily limit. If the banking institution limits your daily usage that may mean that on a particular day you may not be able to make a large purchase, even though you have money in the bank. Otherwise as long as you have funds in the account linked to the debit card you can make the transaction. The catch is that as soon as the transaction is sent to the bank one of two things happens: the money is immediately deducted from the account; or a hold equal to the the amount of the transaction is placed on the account. A hold is generally used when the transaction is done in two parts: the pre-scan at a restaurant, or gas station. The hold reduces the amount of available funds in the account. A hold or an immediate deduction limits the size of future transactions. To be able to make larger transactions you need to transfer more money into the account. There is no debit card transaction that you can do to artificially allow a larger transaction, unless the bank is not placing a hold or doing an immediate deduction. Because a debit card is linked to a bank account, some accounts have overdraft protection. This protection comes in two forms: they either transfer your money from another account, or they make a loan. Either way there can be costs involved." }, { "docid": "167951", "title": "", "text": "\"No they won't; EVs are more than \"\"a few years\"\" from being the majority of cars on the road. And even then, what's to stop Oregon/Jersey from requiring an attendant from plugging your car into the recharging station? It's not like there's a valid reason for gas station attendants other than artificially increasing the number of the jobs.\"" }, { "docid": "549833", "title": "", "text": "Location, Location, Location. The closer to the highway, the more they can charge. People want to go less than a mile from the exit to get gas. Therefore they save time, but spend more money. That is understandable, so the gas station takes advantage of the situation." }, { "docid": "563478", "title": "", "text": "I'll ensure to have my ducks in a row. It's the top prize and I purchased the ticket at a gas station in a town of 5000 people. I don't think retaining a lawyer is a good idea with the dollar amount, maybe if it was in the millions, but will take your suggestions to heart. Thank you!" }, { "docid": "549480", "title": "", "text": "\">There's tons of gas stations There have to be, because you can't fuel your car at home like an EV driver can. The only place fast-chargers are needed are along highways for people taking long trips. And that's exactly where they are. Tesla Superchargers are along all major highways, spaced so that drivers can get wherever they need to go. Sure, it's more than 5 minutes to charge up a car. But that's offset by spending NO time waiting for the other 90% of your daily driving. Just plug in when you get home, and you've got a full \"\"tank\"\" of electricity every morning.\"" }, { "docid": "507385", "title": "", "text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada." }, { "docid": "129107", "title": "", "text": "Just to make this a little less vauge, I will base everything on the Mercedes Benz American Express (MB AMEX) card, which is the closest to a $100 annual fee I found on American Express's website. The benefits of a card with an annual fee generally are worth the cost if (and only if) you spend enough money on the card, and avoid paying interest to offset the benefit. Using the MB AMEX card as a reference, it offers 5X points for Mercedes Benz purchases, 3X points at gas stations, 2X points at restaurants, and 1X points everywhere else. Even if we only make purchases at the 1X rate, it only takes charging $10,000 to the card in a year in order to make up the difference. Not too hard to do on a card someone uses as their main method of payment. Every dollar spent at the higher rates only makes that easier. There are a number of other benefits as well. After spending $5,000 on the card in a year, you receive a $500 gift card towards the purchase of a Mercedes Benz car. For anyone on the market for a Mercedes Benz, the card pays for itself multiple times with just this benefit." }, { "docid": "428290", "title": "", "text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"" }, { "docid": "277780", "title": "", "text": "\"You don't think rent, gas, and utilities would go up? Seems like you're trying to suggest that this person is ignoring factors while completely ignoring the interconnectedness of our society. If minimum wage jumps to $15/hr, suddenly minimum wage workers can afford to live in places that only people who could make $15/hr could live in. Now those areas are overflowing with potential tennants and the people that own the buildings realize that they can charge more. Suddenly, rent goes up. People living at those places go, \"\"hey, if a burger flipper makes $15/hr, there's no reason for me to keep busting my ass at this rate! I'm gonna ask for a raise too!\"\", so now anyone working for the gas company also wants a proportional raise, driving up the price of gas, etc. etc. etc. \"\"Oh, well, we'll just do it incrementally over time and that will fix it\"\" Sure...\"" }, { "docid": "106371", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the key to this question is to think about how people tick. The underlying assumption in any decision that measures monetary value or other economic principles is that we're rational actors in a global marketplace. Life isn't a ledger or a taxi on a meter. If you have time on your hands or enjoy the act of driving when you run your errands, that diversion to save a dime on gas isn't a net loss, it just is. That may be a different story if you need to get your rental car returned so that you can fly home -- in that case, you're ok with getting hosed by the gas station strategically located between hotels and the airport. Our motivations are deeper than that. Some people get a feeling of satisfaction or security from always getting the \"\"best deal\"\". Some folks visit a particular gas station because the clerks are friendly or the coffee is good. Others want to pay more -- they buy \"\"premium\"\" gas from Exxon/Mobil because they are premium people who \"\"buy the best\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "159310", "title": "", "text": "I took the Greyhound home for Thanksgiving. It would normally be a 9 hour drive, but with stops the bus trip ended up being 13. There was more legroom than an airplane and the tickets cost less than gas would have, but my favorite part was the scheduling. I was able to work Wednesday and take an overnight bus. I actually slept pretty well during the 4-hour stretches between stations (I brought a flask full of scotch to make sure). Unfortunately, they kick you off the bus and make you wait for an hour in the loud, brightly-lit stations while they gas up / change drivers. On the way back, I got to hang out all the way through Sunday and still made it to work Monday morning. Overall, a much better experience than I was expecting." }, { "docid": "247394", "title": "", "text": "It seems to me that oil will never again reach or exceed $100 a barrel. The rate at which we are abandoning fossil fuels means we will never ever run out of the stuff. Demand will continue to decrease, and electric cars will be the first cars that are owned by the people in emerging markets in the next decade. And in a decade from now, 90% of all new cars will be purely electric. Beyond that, Fusion research on multiple fronts (but not ITER - that will never ever produce a plan for a viable power station) points to total destruction of coal and gas as a fuel for power stations. And when they come online, you don't even need to build new power stations! All you do is build banks of reactors in the car park, hook up the steam pipes to the new reactors, and then bulldoze the old furnaces. Job done." }, { "docid": "440261", "title": "", "text": "\">For IT departments internally billing is essential for managing expectations. Otherwise they are treated as an endless pool of free resources. It -- chargeback/internal billing -- can (and I have seen this in action) also work the opposite way; it can allow IT to \"\"tax\"\" other departments inordinately and continue to operate inefficiently. The devil is always in the details; and the chief problem with chargeback systems is when things are \"\"genericized\"\" (for example charging \"\"set rates\"\" to each department based on CPU count {regardless of whether one unit in one department is a high-power CAD station, or file-server, and the equivalent of a \"\"netbook\"\" in other departments} -- or likewise by the number of printers {regardless of type, charging a massive workgroup printer the same $500 per unit annual \"\"support\"\" cost as a label-printer that only cost $50 retail, etc.}) And likewise with the \"\"IT shouldn't actually charge-back labor\"\" -- you still create the \"\"endless pool of resources\"\" problem, just in the form of labor rather than equipment. Basically internal charge-back systems CAN function -- *if they are properly constructed, and PROPERLY adjusted to take into account different (and changing) costs* -- but far too many companies \"\"implement\"\" such a thing, and then let it fossilize (where it ends up creating the same kinds of unnecessary and troublesome distortions that it was purportedly put in place to solve).\"" }, { "docid": "270994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm surprised at the tone of the answers to this question! Trading with insider information is corruption and encourages fraud. As in many areas, there's an ethical line where behavior the gap between \"\"ok\"\" and \"\"illegal\"\" or unethical is thin. The classic local government insider information example is when the local councilman finds out that a highway exit is being constructed in an area that consists mostly of farmland. Knowing this, he buys out the farmers at what they think is a premium, and turns around for 10x profit a few months later. In that context, do you think that the councilman acting on that insider information is committing a crime or ethical lapse? Most people say yes. Even in this case, the line is thin. If the same councilman has his finger on the pulse of growth patterns in the area, and realizes that the terrain makes a certain area a prime candiate for a highway and exit, buying up land would not be criminal -- but it would be risky as it creates a perception that he is abusing his position.\"" }, { "docid": "495710", "title": "", "text": "\"Hi there, I'm a Tesla owner. I think, for the Model S and X segment currently buying cars, you're right. Environmentalism isn't the first and foremost thing in their mind. However, that isn't to say being environmentally conscious isn't a credit they should receive for their purchase, because other informing factors, like charging at home instead of needing to refuel, is a perk AND it reduces oil/gas usage. I didn't buy my car to \"\"lower my carbon footprint\"\", as buying an EV doesn't necessarily do so in the big picture. I do, however, LOVE the fact I can charge my car at home and never visit a gas station. Every day, I get in my car with a \"\"full tank\"\", and I'm one less paying customer at the pump. As far as a status symbol, for me, it's the opposite. I don't want a showy, iconic vehicle that people will gawk at me over. I'm fairly low key, I'd rather not have the attention. I just needed/wanted a car with great interior cargo space, but was an electric vehicle I could charge at home. The Chevy Bolt, VW eGolf, Fiat 500e, and other EV options didn't fit the bill for me. Also, and most importantly, I wanted a vehicle that's future proofed (at least for a few years) to offer full self driving capability the moment it was allowed. Tesla became the icon for offering attractive electric vehicles at a time when most available options looked phoned in. Remember what you said in your first post: \"\"$500,000,000 loan for a car they've never seen and many won't receive for well over a year?\"\" A lot of people, myself included, never saw the \"\"official prototype\"\" until after we made our reservations on March 31, 2016. So the notion that it's purely an icon seems incomplete. I will say this, though: as soon as other auto makers take the EV market seriously, and design cars that actually look attractive, I think you'll see the Tesla demand drop for those who are looking for EV options pure and simple. I think, in the next few years, as more EV makers step up, what will differentiate the vehicles is the underlying tech in the car first and foremost, closely followed by design aesthetic. Tesla will retain buyers if they beat everyone to market with an available, fully self-driving capable vehicle, but they'll see some of that market shift away if other makers break in.\"" }, { "docid": "338320", "title": "", "text": "They are private businesses, and they open as they want, quite the same as gas stations or supermarkets. You can open a fourth one, if you think there is money to be made. May not be a bad idea, if you know a bit about cyber security." }, { "docid": "24344", "title": "", "text": "\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "402249", "title": "", "text": "Some of this is demand management. The local BJ's wholesale club sells gas $0.10-0.15/gallon less than the prevailing rate. Typically there are lines of 3-5 cars waiting for a pump during busy periods. People are price-conscious when buying gas, which draws crowds and the retailer actually wants a line -- the whole point of the gas station is to draw traffic to the warehouse club. Other gas stations have the opposite problem -- big crowds lead to fewer people buying food and drinks in the convenience store, which is where the business actually makes its money. They want a steady stream of people. In my area, there is a gas station that is on a busy intersection right off the highway ramp going to the airport. Their problem is that people returning rental cars used to swarm the gas station and cause traffic tie-ups on the road -- a problem averted by marking up the gas $0.30." } ]

[ { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "397608", "title": "", "text": "I contacted Stephen Fishman, J.D., the author of Home Business Tax Deductions, to let him know that this question was missing from his book. He was kind enough to send a reply. My original phrasing of the question: If your car is used for both business and personal use, and you deduct via the actual expense method, do trips to the mechanic, gas station, and auto parts store to service or repair the car count as business miles, personal miles, or part-business-part-personal miles? What about driving the newly-purchased car home from the dealership? And his response: Good question. I can find nothing about this in IRS publication or elsewhere. However, common sense would tell us that the cost of driving to make car repairs should be deductible. If you use your car for business, it is a business expense, just like transporting any other piece of business equipment for repairs is a business expense. This should be so whether you use the standard mileage rate or actual expense method. You should probably reduce the amount of your deduction by the percentage of personal use of the car during the year. The same goes for driving a car home from the dealer." }, { "docid": "265142", "title": "", "text": "I like how companies' solution is basically to just have us work the damn register ourselves for free. Gas stations used to have people come out and pump your gas. Now that would just seem creepy and unnecessary. In 20 years, kids will think the same thing of cashiers." }, { "docid": "260087", "title": "", "text": "Each company that has an account with the credit card network has to classify themselves as a particular type of business. The credit card company uses that classification to catagorize the transaction on your statement. If you buy a T-shirt at a grocery, amusement park, gas station, or resturant; the transaction will be labeled by the vendor type. Look at recent credit card statements, even if they are from different cards, to see how the stores you want to know about are classified." }, { "docid": "123291", "title": "", "text": "Just looking at CONED, [here is gas](https://www.coned.com/_external/cerates/documents/average_monthly_gas_bills.pdf) and [here is electric](https://www.coned.com/-/media/files/coned/documents/accountandbilling/about-your-bill-rates/average_monthly_electric_bills.pdf). You'll have to forgive me -- when it comes to NY, I'm more familiar with gas and with residential rates, so what I said doesn't hold true across the board for electric commercial customers. For residential electric, starting in 2009, delivery started outpacing commodity charges; by 2015 (not sure why they haven't posted 2016 data yet), $29 worth of electricity cost you $49 in delivery charges. For residential gas, the flip occurred in 2010 and was much more significant -- in 2016, a customer whose bill is just over $100 paid $75 for delivery and $25 for the actual gas (part of that is that gas prices are low, part of it is that delivery costs have gone up nearly 50%). Each utility is different, so the [gas info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/85297E80413DBEDB852581A6006261BE?OpenDocument) and the [electric info is here](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/0B9E6D4CE48E09EE852578570055E27B?OpenDocument) if you're interested. I'm not sure about primers -- I haven't really looked for them -- but I know that many companies and brokers do have some materials on their websites. For electricity in particular, I'm much more familiar with Texas than New York, but a lot of the principles are the same: look at your bills and make sure you understand all the charges and what your usage/demand is (especially over the course of a year), look up the [utility tariff](http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/1ABA5E2E4E08F72585257687006F3AB1?OpenDocument), and make sure everything lines up. I harp on demand charges (a charge based on your peak energy usage during any set interval of time -- 15 minutes in TX, not sure about NY) because that's where commercial customers can get stuck paying really high charges." }, { "docid": "435211", "title": "", "text": "I've seen this in my town. I don't know if they are charging for Teslas specifically, or things like the Volt (I don't own an electric car so haven't looked into it too much), but there are over a dozen places in my city that have parking spots equipped with charging stations. They are outside various retail locations/malls as well as parking garages at the local university. Keep in mind, this is not a major city. The total population is about 150,000 and that includes about 50,000 transient students who aren't here during the summer." }, { "docid": "24344", "title": "", "text": "\"First, is population density. You didn't say where exactly, but for example here in Tampa, Wells Fargo has 25 branches in the area (though that is a bit larger then what I would think of the Tampa area as a local) Second, we can mix in service expectation. I expect that in addition to \"\"good\"\" online service, \"\"great\"\" phone service, \"\"great\"\" email service, that when I have a problem, don't understand something, or want to talk about my options for investing or choosing account types, that I am able to go into a branch. That I can \"\"walk in\"\" and see someone quickly, or schedule an appointment and see some one right away (at my appointment time). Together, these two options means that on a busy day, the nearest Wells Fargo Branch to me has at any one time, 50 - 60 people in it. Smaller branches, of course have less, and larger branches exist. So it just takes that many branches to address the number of people and their expected needs. As to why there are so many different brands/banks Well that's just the USA. We believe in capitalism. We have believed in it much stronger in the past, but banks are the central to capitalism so why shouldn't they serve as an example. At it's core (a very simplistic look) Capitalism and a free market means that we as customers are better served by having lots of different brands fighting for our business. It should drive more consumer desired features (like lower prices, higher interest rates, better fee schedules, etc.) while forcing those brands to operate \"\"better\"\". (Just ignore the bail out, that's a loaded topic) So for some of us, we want a big bank like Wells Fargo, because we want the rates, structure, and service they can provide as a \"\"big bank\"\". For others they want the more personal touch of a \"\"small bank\"\". There are benefits both ways. For example there may be a bank that only allows people with excellent credit to open accounts. That allows they to have lower over all mortgage rates, but means their checking accounts have higher minimums. While the next bank may be more inclusive, and have smaller minimum balances, but as a result charge more for loans. We like our options, and rest assured all those \"\"brands\"\" offer products that have differences that attract customers.\"" }, { "docid": "321954", "title": "", "text": "Gas stations have existed for 100 years. Automobile ownership has not increased by 10% year over year since before JFK was President. EVs are growing so next summer when 1000s of Model 3s take summer road trips to Yellowstone or another popular destinations there will be dozens of gas stations able to service cars at 5 min per pump all day long. The Model 3s will overwhelm the superchargers and need 30 or more minutes per charger. Same for NFL stadiums that draw fans from 100 miles away so a game-time charge is desired. Road trips 2017 are going to be Hell on Earth and the S and X owners used to infrequent Mike inconveniences are going to freak out. Workplaces such as hospitals could install 3 chargers and handle the doctors and VPs needs. Now staff will roll up in 3s and park just like the doctors clogging up the charger all shift. Pop up some corn while the infrastructure catches up." }, { "docid": "24222", "title": "", "text": "High water table next to a river may be a serious flood risk - and flood insurance on a buried multi thousand gallon tank of gas may be prohibitively expensive. Everything I've read and experienced about gas station is that you don't make money off the gas - as in the margin is almost nill. Also in 10-20 years what percentage of cars on the road will be electric?" }, { "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": "482813", "title": "", "text": "There are many gas stations where I live that already have different prices if you pay for cash vs. credit. In addition, some small businesses are doing this as well. My wife bought a birthday cake from a bakery. If you paid with cash, you saved 5%." }, { "docid": "446555", "title": "", "text": "\"I think it is the debate here. The functional use case is that it takes seconds to plug in. Even if you added all the time I've spent \"\"on-the-go\"\" charging, which is very little, then the amount of time I've spent charging has been less than the amount of time I would have spent filling up on gas over the course of several years. Also, like I said in the comment, this is not just \"\"MY\"\" use case. You can ask other drivers about it, the vast majority will say they prefer charging now that they have experienced it. Look at Volts - most of their miles are done on electricity, and there are a lot of Volt drivers who use the term \"\"gas anxiety\"\" because they don't want to fill up with gas so they do everything they can not to let the engine turn on at all. And for another car example, Tesla installed a battery swapper which made the filling-up experience more \"\"gas-like,\"\" in that it took <5 minutes and cost about $50. Nobody used it. They instead plugged in at the free supercharger nearby, got out to stretch their legs, went to eat lunch, and came back to their cars and drove off. Heck, I've heard plenty of Tesla owners lament that their car charged *too quickly*, which meant they had to get up in the middle of lunch to go unplug it. Very few people will regularly \"\"need\"\" to charge en-route in something like a Bolt, Model 3 or Model S. Those very few people who routinely drive 300 miles in a day one-way, or roundtrip with very little stop at their destination with which they could charge, are a niche customer who does not need to be catered to at this moment in time. However, and I get this all the time, everyone on reddit thinks they're part of that niche. On a website full of people who talk about spending all their day on reddit, somehow these people get the time to spend driving 400 miles a day. Not saying you're doing that right now, but lots of people do it here. 95%+ of charge events will be normal, day-to-day charges where it takes no time, the \"\"on-the-go\"\" cases are few and far between. EV motorcycles are pretty reasonably priced, but it sounds like you've probably already done some research on them. Check out Zero if you haven't heard of them. Cool thing about them is the battery is small so you can charge it on 120v in a reasonable amount of time (overnight), and I've heard from motorcycle drivers that they even feel more safe on an EV because all those brain cycles you spend on shifting and clutching are freed up to spend on paying attention to the road which is full of cars that are trying to kill you. Also the Bolt is a fantastic car. Highly recommend it. edit: oh, and with your name, you should check out the Lightning LS218's results at Pike's Peak a few years ago. Beat the Ducati by 20 seconds ;-) https://www.wired.com/2013/07/lightning-pikes-peak-2013/\"" }, { "docid": "404833", "title": "", "text": "I actually just did that with my Chase Freedom card. They rotate categories every 3 months, and from April-June it was 5% back at grocery stores. So I bought a ton of gas cards and got my 5% back. Next I figured out I would be clever and buy a ton of store gift cards (grocery gift cards) right at the end of the quarter, then use those in the future to purchase gas cards. Well, I just tried that a couple days ago and discovered the store refuses to sell a gift card if you're paying with a gift card! So now I'm stuck with $1,000 in grocery cards until I use them in actual grocery purchases haha One of the things about this grocery store is they partner with a gas station on their rewards program. They offer 10 cents off a gallon with every $100 spent in store, and they double it to 20 cents off a gallon if you buy $100 in gift cards. Then on the back of the receipt is a coupon for 10 cents off per gallon -- which they double on Tuesdays. Unfortunately I think I'm one of the only people that takes this much advantage of the program :-/ Side note: I actually just changed the billing cycle of my Chase Freedom card to end on the 24th of the month. That way I can charge a bunch of rewards in the final 6-7 days of the quarter. And if I have a $0 balance on the 24th, my bill isn't due for 7 weeks -- interest free! And Chase Freedom has never cared if you purchase gift cards with their quarterly rewards program. I also gave them a courtesy email giving the specific store and $$$ amount that was going to be charged, and of course they still called me with a 'fraud alert'..." }, { "docid": "324411", "title": "", "text": "I only have anecdotal evidence here as members of my family used to own a grocery store / gas station, but they were often time charged much more to have the gasoline delivered to than many gas stations which were just a mile or two away (up to 15% more). Also depending upon the branding of the gas station, they are required to use certain distributors (i.e. if you are an Exxon gas station you can only use a few select vendors) which gave them less control of their final cost. All in all the gasoline often had smaller margins than items in the grocery store, which are already extremely low." }, { "docid": "507385", "title": "", "text": "A credit balance can happen any time you have a store return, but paid the bill in full. It's no big deal. Why not just charge the next gas purchase or small grocery store purchase, to cycle it through? Yes - unused cards can get canceled by the bank, and that can hurt your credit score. In the US anyway. I'm guessing it's the same system or similar in Canada." }, { "docid": "443094", "title": "", "text": "\"In addition to the possibility of buying gold ETFs or tradable certificates, there are also firms specializing in providing \"\"bank accounts\"\" of sorts which are denominated in units of weight of precious metal. While these usually charge some fees, they do meet your criteria of being able to buy and sell precious metals without needing to store them yourself; also, these fees are likely lower than similar storage arranged by yourself. Depending on the specifics, they may also make buying small amounts practical (buying small amounts of physical precious metals usually comes with a large mark-up over the spot price, sometimes to the tune of a 50% or so immediate loss if you buy and then immediately sell). Do note that, as pointed out by John Bensin, buying gold gets you an amount of metal, the local currency value of which will vary over time, sometimes wildly, so it is not the same thing as depositing the original amount of money in a bank account. Since 2006, the price of an ounce (about 31.1 grams) of gold has gone from under $500 US to over $1800 US to under $1100 US. Few other investment classes are anywhere near this volatile. If you are interested in this type of service, you might want to check out BitGold (not the same thing at all as Bitcoin) or GoldMoney. (I am not affiliated with either.) Make sure to do your research thoroughly as these may or may not be covered by the same regulations as regular banks, particularly if you choose a company based outside of or a storage location outside of your own country.\"" }, { "docid": "106324", "title": "", "text": "I don't know why stocks in some industries tend to have lower prices per share than others. It doesn't really matter much. Whether a company has 1,000,0000 shares selling for $100 each, or 10,000,000 shares selling for $10 each, either way the total value is the same. Companies generally like to keep the share price relatively low so that if someone wants to buy a small amount, they can. Like if the price was $10,000 per share, than an investor with less than $10,000 to put in that one stock would be priced out of the market. If it's $10, then if someone wants $10 they can buy one share, and if someone wants $10,000 they can buy 1000 shares. As to why energy stocks are volatile, I can think of several reasons. One, in our current world, energy is highly susceptible to politics. A lot of the world's energy comes from the Middle East, which is a notoriously unstable region. Any time there's conflict there, energy supplies from the region become uncertain. Oil-producing countries may embargo countries that they don't like. A war will, at the very least, interfere with transportation and shipping, and may result in oil wells being destroyed. Etc. Two, energy is consumed when you use it, and most consumers have very limited ability to stockpile. So you're constantly buying the energy you need as you need it. So if demand goes down, it is reflected immediately. Compare this to, say, clothing. Most people expect to keep the same clothes for years, wearing them repeatedly. (Hopefully washing them now and then!) So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile." }, { "docid": "42569", "title": "", "text": "Family has owned a gas stations for 10+ years. Gas is a bitch to own and most retailers make about 20¢ a gallon profit not including insurance/repairs. Hard to find gas station pump parts along with the high cost of repairing it if it breaks. It's mainly used to attract customers inside the store because that's where you make the profit." }, { "docid": "247394", "title": "", "text": "It seems to me that oil will never again reach or exceed $100 a barrel. The rate at which we are abandoning fossil fuels means we will never ever run out of the stuff. Demand will continue to decrease, and electric cars will be the first cars that are owned by the people in emerging markets in the next decade. And in a decade from now, 90% of all new cars will be purely electric. Beyond that, Fusion research on multiple fronts (but not ITER - that will never ever produce a plan for a viable power station) points to total destruction of coal and gas as a fuel for power stations. And when they come online, you don't even need to build new power stations! All you do is build banks of reactors in the car park, hook up the steam pipes to the new reactors, and then bulldoze the old furnaces. Job done." } ]

[ { "docid": "244961", "title": "", "text": "\"I'll echo: many factors. Brand: There are generally two levels of pricing: \"\"major brand\"\" and \"\"discount brand\"\". You can generally expect the \"\"discount brand\"\" to cost about 5-10 cents less per gallon in the same neighborhood as \"\"major brand\"\" gas. This is for a number of sub-factors; chief among them is that not all gasolines are created equal. A lot of the major brands (Shell, Texaco, Chevron, BP, Exxon) have proprietary detergents and cleaning agents that the discount brands do not. They're also generally closer to the real octane rating of the gas, have less ethanol (you'll see the sign that says \"\"contains up to 10% ethanol\"\"; the bargain brands are right up at that limit while the top-tier brands keep it lower) and have stricter requirements about storage tank maintenance. Anyone who tells you that all gas is the same, send em my way; I tried to save a few bux buying the cheaper stuff and now my car needs an engine overhaul because of fouling causing premature wear. A couple of my co-workers got a fuel system overhaul free from the local supermarket because the storage tank wasn't properly purged, and they got water into their gas tanks. Market Price: Yes, this is of course a factor. Generally, gas prices at the pump rise very quickly when the market price of crude or gasoline goes up, then fall more slowly than the market price, because the margins on gas sales for a C-store are very slim. When prices change, the C-stores lose either way; when prices rise they have to pay more than they got from the last tankful to buy the next one, and when prices fall they don't recoup the cost of their current tank. By quickly increasing the price to match commodities market prices, then gradually lowering them over time even if the market collapses, they mitigate the losses both ways. Overhead: A gas station right next to a highway probably had to pay more for that land, both to buy/lease it and in property taxes. Nicer (newer, cleaner) stations generally have to pay more to stay that way. The higher your operating costs, the more you'll have to charge for your gas. You can usually do so because the nicer station will attract customers willing to pay a few cents more for the nicer facilities. Taxation: Most States charge a tax on gasoline, in addition to a Federal tax on gas. That revenue either goes into the State's general fund, or is earmarked for transportation costs like road maintenance. California's gas prices are sky-high across the state, because they have the highest gas tax. I'm not sure Colorado, Wyoming and Montana have gas taxes at all. Proximity to other stations: No matter what you have to pay for the land and facilities, if there's another station across the street, you have to be within a penny of their price or people will vote with their feet. While \"\"predatory pricing\"\" (taking a loss on sales in one area, buffered by profits elsewhere, in order to drive out competition) is technically illegal, you see it all the time in the C-store industry and it is very difficult to prove. This is a primary cause of neighborhood-to-neighborhood changes; a C-store will look around the other stations on their street corner, and the ones down the road a block or two each direction, when determining what they can sell gas for that day. The guy five blocks down has a completely different pool of competing stations. Population Distribution: With a lot of people in a particular area, there's a big \"\"pie\"\" of customer dollars for C-stores to compete for. This generally leads to increased prices because the stations don't have to be AS cutthroat; regardless of how good your price is, you have only so many pumps, and at some point people will pay more to use the open pump than wait for the cheaper one. The reverse is true in rural areas; with only two stations in an entire small town, those two stations will become extremely cutthroat. However, rural prices also vary more; with only one station in easy walking distance from where you ran out of gas, they can charge you $6 to fill that gallon gas can if they want, and you'll pay it because the next gas station's another 20 miles down the road and probably has even higher prices. This, along with overhead, is generally why the Rockies states have the lowest average prices; land's cheap and people are scarce in Wyoming. But, the \"\"price-gouging\"\" can be seen in the rural Southwest, where there's a LOT of ground to cover between gas stations, and so the \"\"last chance gas\"\" along major highways just outside of town, each a nickel to a dime more than the previous station, is a common stereotype. Transportation costs: Prices are higher on the East and West Coasts than in the Gulf States for a very simple reason; the bulk of the U.S. refinery capacity is along the Gulf Coast between Galveston and the Florida border. The further you are from there, the more it costs to get the fuel from the refinery to the gas station, and that cost is reflected at the pump. In fact, the East Coast imports gasoline by tanker even though the United States is now a net exporter of gasoline, because it's cheaper to buy it from foreign sources than it would be to watch it drip through the limited pipeline capacity that exists between the Gulf states and the Eastern Seaboard.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "270994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm surprised at the tone of the answers to this question! Trading with insider information is corruption and encourages fraud. As in many areas, there's an ethical line where behavior the gap between \"\"ok\"\" and \"\"illegal\"\" or unethical is thin. The classic local government insider information example is when the local councilman finds out that a highway exit is being constructed in an area that consists mostly of farmland. Knowing this, he buys out the farmers at what they think is a premium, and turns around for 10x profit a few months later. In that context, do you think that the councilman acting on that insider information is committing a crime or ethical lapse? Most people say yes. Even in this case, the line is thin. If the same councilman has his finger on the pulse of growth patterns in the area, and realizes that the terrain makes a certain area a prime candiate for a highway and exit, buying up land would not be criminal -- but it would be risky as it creates a perception that he is abusing his position.\"" }, { "docid": "127577", "title": "", "text": "\">You also have to plan around finding chargers. How is that different from planning around gas stations? Tesla has the superchargers all along freeways for long trips. For everyday driving, you plug it in at home. So there's a lot less \"\"planning around\"\" anything.\"" }, { "docid": "363186", "title": "", "text": "eallan already touched on this, but generally speaking there is a tendency in this country to lump unions together and put the shortcomings of one local or one unit or one member onto all of them. An example would be the issue of corruption; many people cry about rampant corruption in unions when in fact only somewhere between 1-2% of locals have ever had any corruption charges, whereas I'd be willing to bet that the corruption rate is much higher in the corporate world. > Honestly, I cant think of any reason for minimum wage paying jobs to have a union. If you think the wages are too low for cost of living then the minimum wage should be raised. These people have no special skills, little to no training, and usually no education. Genuine question: What reasons do you think someone would/could have for joining a union? Why would base pay/education/skill level of the job be a consideration? Just so we're on the same page: Collective bargaining came about because workers in certain areas were pissed-off enough that they realized that to improve their situation they had to come together as a group, because only as a group did they have any leverage. All workers have the right to collective bargaining, rights which were signed into law because pissed-off workers were doing it anyway, and the regulation of the practice helped smooth it out and drastically cut down on violence and debilitating drops in production. It takes quite a feeling of injustice and exploitation when not friends, not family, but colleagues, some of which may not even like each other, start seeing that they share common problems, and decide to tie the fate of their working lives to one another. And give up like 1-2% of their paychecks. Especially in a country with an individualistic culture like the US. So if workers at certain Wal-Marts feel like working conditions are that bad for them, then I can't see why they shouldn't organize." }, { "docid": "292991", "title": "", "text": "As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments. Unfortunately, answers to this question will be somewhat opinion and experience-based. I have two suggestions, however both involve risk, which you will likely experience in any situation. Peer to Peer Lending In my own situation, I've placed a large sum of money into peer-to-peer lending sites, such as LendingClub. LendingClub specifically advertises that 98% of its user base that invests in 100 notes or more of relatively equal size receive positive returns, and I'm sure you'll see similar statements in other similarly established vendors in this area. Historical averages in this industry can be between 5-7%, you may be able to perform above or below this average. The returns on peer to peer lending investments are paid out fairly frequently, as each loan you invest in on the site pays back into your account every time the recipient of the loan makes a payment. If you invest in small amounts / fractions of several hundred loans, you're receiving several small payments throughout the month on various dates. You can withdraw any money you have received back that hasn't been invested, or money you have in the account that hasn't been invested, at any time for personal spending. However, this involves various risks, which have to be considered (Such as someone you've loaned money to on the site defaulting). Rental Property / Property itself I'm also considering purchasing a very cheap home, and renting it out to tenants for passive income. This is something I would consider a possibility for you. On this front, you have the savings to do the same. It would be possible for you to afford the 20% downpayment on a very low cost home (Say, $100,000 or less up to $200,000 depending on your area), but you'd need to be able to pay for the monthly mortgage payment until you had a tenant, and would need to be able to afford any on-going maintenance, however ideally you'd factor that into the amount you charged tenants. You could very likely get a mortgage for a place, and have a tenant that pays you rent that exceeds the amount you pay for the mortgage and any maintenance costs, earning you a profit and therefore passive income. However, rental properties involve risks in that you might have trouble finding tenants or keeping tenants or keeping the property in good shape, and it's possible the property value could decrease. One could also generalize that property is a somewhat 'safe' investment, in that property values tend to increase over time, and while you may not significantly over-run inflation's increase, you may be able to get more value out of the property by renting it out in the mean time. Additional Note on Credit You mention you have a credit card payment that you're making, to build credit. I'd like to place here, for your reference, that you do not need to carry a balance to build credit. Having active accounts and ensuring you don't miss payments builds your history. To be more specific, your history is based off of many different aspects, such as: I'm sure I missed a couple of things on this front, you should be able to find this information with some research. Wanted to make sure you weren't carrying a balance simply due to the common myth that you must do so to build credit. Summary The items mentioned above are suggestions, but whatever you choose to invest in, you should carefully spread out / diversify your portfolio across a variety of different areas. It would not be advisable to stick to just one investment method (Say, either of the two above) and not also invest in stocks / bonds or other types of investments as well. You can certainly decide what percentage of your portfolio you want to invest in different areas (for instance X% of assets in Stocks/bonds, Y% in real-estate, etc), but it does make the most sense to not have all of your eggs in one basket." }, { "docid": "159310", "title": "", "text": "I took the Greyhound home for Thanksgiving. It would normally be a 9 hour drive, but with stops the bus trip ended up being 13. There was more legroom than an airplane and the tickets cost less than gas would have, but my favorite part was the scheduling. I was able to work Wednesday and take an overnight bus. I actually slept pretty well during the 4-hour stretches between stations (I brought a flask full of scotch to make sure). Unfortunately, they kick you off the bus and make you wait for an hour in the loud, brightly-lit stations while they gas up / change drivers. On the way back, I got to hang out all the way through Sunday and still made it to work Monday morning. Overall, a much better experience than I was expecting." }, { "docid": "423320", "title": "", "text": "\"In response: 1 - So every disease that isn't glamorous enough to generate independent financing for research isn't going to get cured. Gotcha. More people die of colon and rectal cancer per year than breast cancer, but you'll never see a \"\"Save the poopers\"\" walk, because that shit doesn't sell yogurt. Most \"\"awareness\"\" fundraisers don't do anything (or do comparatively little) for research. They're more about supporting survivors. Yet, the CDC is one of, if not the most successful federally-funded program ever. It's wiped two diseases off the face of the earth. No bake sale is going to do that. Public health is a market failure - and the CDC has managed to give away 80% of its funding to third-party research and programming in such a way that it has accomplished goals including eradication of disease. 2 - First, [comptrollers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comptroller) are financial reporting and accounting oversight managers. The guys who wear headsets are aircraft controllers. So which airline will have the flight controllers? Will every small operation have to have its own controller in every tower at every airport it lands at? Or will the airlines large enough to have controllers simply charge everyone else to use theirs? Even more interesting, without oversight, what's to stop misinformation being fed between controllers with different carriers, for the profit of individual companies? The FAA also inspects aircraft during manufacturing and maintenance. If everyone who builds an aircraft is responsible for funding that themselves, or getting some third-party certification (yet another government organization must be created, or somehow exist profitably by magic), that's going to kill the world of experimental aircraft outside of the big three. 3 - You really didn't google anything before you got into this. No, the police don't enforce FCC regulations; that all falls under the FCC's jurisdiction and they only rely on locals for backup security during raids, which are rare. Leaving it to civil suits means anyone with the largest pockets gets to broadcast the loudest. Leaving it to the locals means training local police to fox hunt. Minor disputes over frequencies? That's plainly naive; nearly everyone with a transmitter has more wattage available than they're legally permitted to use. Broadcast wattage increases are delicately negotiated, petitioned, debated and re-petitioned, and then turned up. Elimination of regulation wouldn't even be settled at the town level - you're talking inter-county and interstate disputes. I personally broadcasted at a station that was greenlighted to 15,000W and we were heard in the tristate area and *Canada* - good luck coming to international accord on broadcasting standards without a federal body to speak for your industry. I'm not even addressing your last paragraph. It's just straw-manning and caricaturization.\"" }, { "docid": "265142", "title": "", "text": "I like how companies' solution is basically to just have us work the damn register ourselves for free. Gas stations used to have people come out and pump your gas. Now that would just seem creepy and unnecessary. In 20 years, kids will think the same thing of cashiers." }, { "docid": "595981", "title": "", "text": "Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation." }, { "docid": "285938", "title": "", "text": "Visually, it's nice. But the problem is actual usage. Apple maps does not work. As someone who has tried using it many times, it simply does not work. It can't find addresses that Google Maps finds with ease. That is what a map program needs to do. And it doesn't. It also is completely wrong for the typical New Yorker, which is what I am. It doesn't have public transportation built in. When zoomed out, it shows me gas stations, like I fucking need them. It also shows icons for chain restaurants that I could give a shit about... why does Burger King need a big ol' icon taking up 2 blocks? Who thought of this feature and didn't give me the option to turn it off or even configure it? Sorry... it is not a very well done app." }, { "docid": "448225", "title": "", "text": "It may seem very simple on its face but you don't know the merchant's agreement. You don't know who is providing the processing equipment. You don't know a lot of things. You know that Visa, Mastercard, Discover, Amex and others have network requirements and agreements. You know that laws have been changed to allow merchant surcharges (previously it was contracts that prohibited surcharges, not laws). That gas station, or that pizza parlor, or any other merchant doesn't have a direct relationship with Visa or Mastercard; it has an agreement with a bank or other processing entity. The issue here, is whom do you even call? And what would you gain? Find out what bank is contracted for that particular equipment and file a complaint that the merchant charged you $0.35? Maybe the merchant agreement allows surcharges up to state and local maximums? You don't know the terms of their agreement. Calling around to figure out what parties are involved to understand the terms of their agreement is a waste of time, like you said you can just go across the street if it's so offensive to you. Or just carry a little cash. If that's not the answer you're looking for, here's one for you: There is no practical recourse." }, { "docid": "87371", "title": "", "text": "yeah but the autonomous cars do things like take them wheels to the gas station and get that automated fill up and pay with a finance algorithm and they clearly take themselves to the car wash maybe these cars need to be different so that interior and exterior can survive a power wash ..." }, { "docid": "411897", "title": "", "text": "\"A better question would be to ask \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge to use the bathroom?\"\", or \"\"Why don't movie theaters charge for parking?\"\". In America, either government regulation or the mall itself forbids charging for parking, or limits the amount that can be charged for parking. This tends to be more true in suburban areas where land is cheap, but less true downtown in cities. The nearest theater to me is in a mall that is also on a metro line. Those who arrive by metro to see the movie are effectively subsidizing those who arrive via automobile and park. I don't know of any place in America that charges to use the bathroom, but the practice is still common in Europe. I saw the second The Matrix film in Brussels, and had to pay to pee. I'm not sure why this isn't the case in the U.S. Maybe there are widespread regulations against this. Or maybe it's a cultural thing, that we would be so offended by this that we would never go back to the theater.\"" }, { "docid": "483018", "title": "", "text": "Hits to your credit rating for canceling one of the newer cards will be a small hit for a few months. You do have some options. I also believe that a person with good credit should have multiple cards: I like having a cash back card for the majority of our transactions. Unfortunately that card isn't accepted everywhere, so I have two other cards with broad market coverage to make sure we always have an option if the vendor doesn't take the main card. Also having multiple cards makes sure that if there is an issue with one card you are never caught without a card. One time the main card was rejected by a gas station because my wife just used the same account to buy gas across town. When we got home their was a fraud alert message on our phone." }, { "docid": "474248", "title": "", "text": "The Federal Reserve website notes that creditors must accept cash for debts on services already rendered, but that businesses may refuse cash for services not yet rendered unless prohibited by local law. The Treasury website includes examples of businesses limiting what cash they will accept: For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy." }, { "docid": "549359", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no magic formula to this, quite simply: earn, cut expenses, and pay. It sounds like you can use a little bit of help in the earning area. While it sounds like you are career focused (which is great) what else can you do to earn? Can you start a low cost of entry side business? Examples would include tutoring, consulting, or even baby sitting. Can you work a part time job that is outside of your career field (waiter, gas station, etc...)? One thing that will help greatly is a written budget each and every month. Have a plan on where to spend your money. Then as you pay off a loan throw that money at the next one. No matter if you use the smallest loan first or highest interest rate first method if you do that your debt payments will \"\"snowball\"\", and you will gain momentum. I'd encourage you to keep good records and do projections. Keeping good records will give you hope when you begin to feel discouraged (it happens to just about everyone). Doing projections will give you goals to meet and then exceed. The wife and I had a lot of success using the cash envelope system and found that we almost always had money left over at the end of the pay cycle. For us that money went to pay off more debt. Do you contribute to a 401K? I'd cut that to at least the match, and if you want to get crazy cut it to zero. The main thing to know is that you can do it. I'd encourage you to pay off all your loans not just the high interests ones.\"" }, { "docid": "428290", "title": "", "text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"" }, { "docid": "456147", "title": "", "text": "It is the people who you bought the ticket from. Blocking is frequently done by hotels, gas stations, or rental car companies. Also, for anything where the credit card might be used to cover any damages or charges you might incur later as part of the transaction. In essence, they are reserving part of your credit limit, ostensibly to cover charges they reasonably expect you might incur. For example, when you start pumping gas using a credit card they may block out $100 to make sure you don't pump a full tank and your credit card is declined because you ran over your limit at $3. In general, the blocks clear fairly quickly after you settle up with the company on your final bill. You can also ask the company to clear the block, but I don't think they are required to by law in any specific time period. It may be up to their (and your) agreement with the credit card company. Normally it isn't an issue and you don't even notice this going on behind the scenes, but if you keep your credit card near its limit, or use a debit card it can lead to nasty surprises (e.g. they can make you overdraw your account). One more reason not to use debit cards. More information is available here on the Federal Trade Commission's website." }, { "docid": "106371", "title": "", "text": "\"I think the key to this question is to think about how people tick. The underlying assumption in any decision that measures monetary value or other economic principles is that we're rational actors in a global marketplace. Life isn't a ledger or a taxi on a meter. If you have time on your hands or enjoy the act of driving when you run your errands, that diversion to save a dime on gas isn't a net loss, it just is. That may be a different story if you need to get your rental car returned so that you can fly home -- in that case, you're ok with getting hosed by the gas station strategically located between hotels and the airport. Our motivations are deeper than that. Some people get a feeling of satisfaction or security from always getting the \"\"best deal\"\". Some folks visit a particular gas station because the clerks are friendly or the coffee is good. Others want to pay more -- they buy \"\"premium\"\" gas from Exxon/Mobil because they are premium people who \"\"buy the best\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "492578", "title": "", "text": "So, my questions: Are payment cards provide sufficient security now? Yes. If so, how is that achieved? Depending on your country's laws, of course. In most places (The US and EU, notably), there's a statutory limit on liability for fraudulent charges. For transactions when the card is not present, proving that the charge is not fraudulent is merchants' task. Why do online services ask for all those CVV codes and expiration date information, if, whenever you poke the card out of your wallet, all of its information becomes visible to everyone in the close area? What can I do to secure myself? Is it? Try to copy someones credit card info next time you're in the line at the local grocery store. BTW, some of my friends tend to rub off the CVV code from the cards they get immediately after receiving; nevertheless, it could have already been written down by some unfair bank employee. Rubbish." } ]

[ { "docid": "17215", "title": "", "text": "The answer seems to depend on where you live. Perhaps you already found this, but the summary from the IRS is: The insurance laws in some states do not allow a corporation to purchase group health insurance when the corporation only has one employee. Therefore, if the shareholder was the sole corporate employee, the shareholder had to purchase his health insurance in his own name. The IRS issued Notice 2008-1, which ruled that under certain situations the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction even if the health insurance policy was purchased in the name of the shareholder. Notice 2008-1 provided four examples, including three examples in which the shareholder purchased the health insurance and one in which the S corporation purchased the health insurance. Notice 2008-1 states that if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name and paid for it with his own funds, the shareholder would not be allowed an above-the-line deduction. On the other hand, if the shareholder purchased the health insurance in his own name but the S corporation either directly paid for the health insurance or reimbursed the shareholder for the health insurance and also included the premium payment in the shareholder’s W-2, the shareholder would be allowed an above-the-line deduction. The bottom line is that in order for a shareholder to claim an above-the-line deduction, the health insurance premiums must ultimately be paid by the S corporation and must be reported as taxable compensation in the shareholder’s W-2. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/S-Corporation-Compensation-and-Medical-Insurance-Issues I understand this to mean that you can only get the deduction in your case (having purchased it in your own name) if your state does not allow your S-Corp to purchase a group health plan because you only have one employee. (I don't know specifically if Illinois fits that description or not.) In addition, there are rules about reporting health insurance premiums for taxes for S-Corp share members that you should also check. Personally, I think that it's complicated enough that advice from a CPA or other tax advisor specific to your situation would be worth the cost." } ]

[ { "docid": "122952", "title": "", "text": "\"The guideline for the size of an emergency fund is just a guideline. I've usually heard it expressed as \"\"3 to 6 months,\"\" but everyone has a different idea of exactly how big it should be. The purpose of the fund is to give you enough cash to be able to pay for unexpected expenses that have come up that you have not budgeted for without you having to borrow money to pay for them. To figure out how big this fund should be, we look at the worst case scenario. Suppose that you lost your job tomorrow. What would you do? Cut your expenses. You'd probably be much more careful how you spend money. Secure health insurance. This would be done by either continuing your employer's policy with COBRA, or by purchasing your own insurance, likely through the Obamacare/ACA market. Keep in mind that most likely your employer is paying for a portion of your insurance now, so this expense will go up quite a bit no matter which option you choose. Look for another job. You'd probably begin your search for a new job immediately. The size of your emergency fund determines how long you will be able to go without income before you need to start a new job. Regarding cutting your expenses, it is up to you how much you would cut. There are things that are easy to cut temporarily (or permanently), such as restaurants, entertainment expenses, vacations, etc. You would probably stop retirement investing until you have income again. The more you cut, the longer your emergency fund would last. Things you don't want to cut are necessities, like housing, groceries, utilities, transportation, etc. I would also include health insurance in this list. Certainly, if you have a pre-existing condition, you do not want to let your health insurance coverage lapse. Your employability is also a factor. If you believe that you would have an easy time finding similar employment to what you have now, your emergency fund might not need to be quite as big as someone who believes they would have a harder time finding another job.\"" }, { "docid": "308255", "title": "", "text": "Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help." }, { "docid": "260385", "title": "", "text": "We don't make enough to really consider it a salary, but I've heard using a draw without a salary is a bad idea. As any other illegal action, not paying yourself a reasonable salary when being a corporate officer is indeed a bad idea. I have no idea what I need to do to actually get some money in our pockets. The answer is simple. You need to earn more money. Since it is S-Corp, it doesn't matter if you keep the profits on the corporate account or distribute - the profits will be taxed to you. You are also, as I said above, required by law to pay yourself a reasonable salary. Reasonable meaning corresponding to market rates. Paying a CPA or a Software Engineer a minimum wage will not be reasonable. That is, of course, if you're profitable, you're not required to pay yourself more money than the corporation actually has. Just to be clear, my answer refers to the question asked, and the confusing answer above that made a claim that has no substantiation in the law. I do not intend to write a thesis about pros and cons of using S-Corp every time a question about reasonable salary is asked." }, { "docid": "170933", "title": "", "text": "\"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate.\"" }, { "docid": "214358", "title": "", "text": "Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29." }, { "docid": "20036", "title": "", "text": "That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner." }, { "docid": "528361", "title": "", "text": "You will be categorized as self employed. Will I have to register myself as a company or can go on unregistered and work You can register a company or can use an umbrella company or work as a sole trader. Remember as a sole trader you are legally responsible for you company's activities, an if a company sues you for your work he can take compensation from your personal assets. As a company your liability ends with the company, if your company is sued. Your personal assets are outside the purview of the lawsuit, but the court can attach that also but those are rare. This doesn't matter if you use an umbrella company. If you intend to be doing this for a short time(maybe a year or so), go for an umbrella company. Else register a company. will take you 5 minutes to form one. Depending on your earning you might need to register for VAT too. A comprehensive guide for self employed on HMRC. what would i need to be sound in uk and to be fit to work online as a freelancer? The same as above. Will it include paying any tax or paying any insurance Yes you have register for National Insurance(NI), before you can pay yourself a salary. The benefit of a company is you pay yourself a minimum salary, below the limit above which you have to contribute for NI, and take the rest as dividends. And pay no tax on it, till you don't exceed the limits. When the money comes in my account, will i be accountable to government of uk, to tell the source of income? If you are operating through a company, yes you would need to show your income(including source) and expenditure when you do your annual returns. What should i be knowing, like health insurance and things that are necessities in uk for a freelancer ? No health insurance as NHS exists. You can take out health insurance if you don't want to get into queues in NHS." }, { "docid": "63047", "title": "", "text": "\"Disclaimer: I'm not a tax professional, or an expert on S-Corps. However, I do have my own S-Corp, and my decision process for taking a distribution has nothing (directly) to do with K-1 past or present, or profit and loss. If I have \"\"extra\"\" cash in my S-Corp, I take a distribution. Assuming I do my taxes correctly, the money will be taxed whether I take a distribution or leave it in the business. So it really comes down to how much cash the business requires to continue operating and meeting its expenses.\"" }, { "docid": "199127", "title": "", "text": ">Bankruptcy is simply a financial tool inside our legal system, nothing more, nothing less. So hypothetically, if I were a high net worth individual. I create a number of Corporations and put all my assets in them. I lease a car with Corp #2 - which I never have more than a few thousand $ in. Have my House in Malibu in Corp#1 My place is Manhattan is in C#3 I am an employee of C#4, 5 and 6. I crash my car into you and you are permanently disabled. You can't work, you don't have much savings, lose your house or apartment. As it turns out, there is no insurance on the car and the lease hasn't been paid in months. You sue me. No assets in Corp #1. You sue me personally - yet on paper I don't own anything. My personal net worth is effectively $0. Assuming you can find an attorney to take this on - and you win in court and get a judgement against me. I have no assets. Nothing to take, nothing to garnish - nothing at all. You on the other hand have bills piling up not to mention the $100's thousands in medical expenses. You are ruined. I am vacationing in the South of France. Nothing unethical about that I guess. *spelling miztaks" }, { "docid": "396968", "title": "", "text": "Basically, no. You have retirement plan options and can either go with a Roth option, which won't change your current tax burden, or go with a traditional plan, which is tax deductible but won't change your business deductions or self-employment taxes. This article has an explanation of options for setting up SEP or Solo 401k plans. Key quote for all the pre-tax retirement plans: Because pre-tax employer and employee contributions are deducted in the same way, neither one is more tax-efficient than the other. The article goes on to say that if you were an S Corp or LLC that elected to be taxed as an S Corp, a Solo 401(k) plan would allow the business to make an employer contribution to your 401(k) and even then there's no tax advantage to the employer contribution. Conclusion for S-corps: [Employer contributions] would reduce the amount of income from the S-corporation that would be passed through to you as the owner, thereby reducing your income tax. But, because this income is not subject to payroll taxes in the first place, these contributions will not reduce your payroll taxes." }, { "docid": "277498", "title": "", "text": "\"> 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% Health Care costs have actually been on the rise for decades now. It was only \"\"noticed\"\" by the majority party (i.e. the GOP who had held the majority for 16 of the years prior to 2009) when the ACA was enacted. Suddenly, health care costs \"\"started\"\" to \"\"explode\"\". The truth is that health care costs have been on a steady rise. In the time period from 1972 to 1982, costs rose on [average 14% per year](https://www.thebalance.com/causes-of-rising-healthcare-costs-4064878). Keep in mind, this was prior to the expansion of Medicare. From 1983-1992 costs grew at a rate of 9% per year - 3 times faster than inflation. From 1993 to 2010, cost rose at a rate of 6.4% per year. The ACA of course was passed in 2009, but didn't start to take effect until 2011. Since 2010, health care costs has risen about 4% per year. That is a 2% drop in a short amount of time, compared to the previous years. However, the numbers are already so big, just like the national debt, that the GOP (who had as much part to play in the health care costs as they did in the debt) had tons of numbers they could use to make it seem like \"\"health care costs have exploded\"\". In reality, what happened is that people who never had health insurance before were forced to get it, and started to realize how expensive it is when it actually covers what it was intended to cover - preventative care as well as emergent care. The GOP has been on a steady march to undermine the new law as much as possible since it passed, because it made some of their biggest donors (HMOs, and Health Care Insurance providers) uncomfortable the fact that they HAD to share their cost information, and that the health care exchange required them to do a line item by line item comparison with other companies out there. So, here we are. The ACA is going to be cut, and millions of people are going back to be uninsured or underinsured. What you are going to see is the rate of costs growth start to increase again after decades of slowly decreasing rates. Why? Because of the renewed ability of insurance providers to hide the costs, to hide costs increases. It will also cause hospitals to greatly overcharge the uninsured, as they were doing before, but there will be many more of them. The goal being, that the uninsured are unlikely to pay for the (very large) medical bills. So, knowing this, hospitals artificially inflate the bill in the hopes of getting a larger portion of that unpaid bill liquidated through Medicare. Uninsured populations also lead to more unhealthy people. You would think that not having health insurance would make people want to remain more healthy. However, studies show [the opposite to be true](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2011/07/does_health_coverage_make_people_healthier.html). In actuality, people stress more about their health, and avoid periodic checkups. Both of which lead to bad health results. Trying to blame the cost increases in health care on government \"\"meddling\"\", or say it is a problem brought on by the ACA is weird since there are [so many examples of government provided](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#175cf39e576f) health care programs out there which are so much more efficient, less costly, and have resulted in much healthier populations. > 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? I am going to call BS. Number one, that is a huge claim to make without supporting evidence. Number two, you would have to demonstrate how much that same visit would cost to those *with* health insurance. > 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\"\" Actually, no. The [exact *opposite* happens](http://www.alternet.org/story/16466/why_hospitals_overcharge_the_uninsured). They now, because you are uninsured, that you are unlikely to pay. So they *overcharge* you for the same services because they know that they will only be reimbursed a percentage of the costs if it goes to Medicare for non-payment. > The swiss do everything better, You keep referring back to Switzerland. Don't get me wrong, they are a very good country, and have the number 2 ranked health care system in the world. However, I don't think they are the low tax haven that you think they are. They have an [average corporate tax rate of 17.2%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates), whereas the US has it at 32%. Their highest income tax bracket is 13.2, whereas the US is at 39%. Their sales tax goes at high as 8%, where ours go as high as 11%. Their [average effective tax](http://www.economist.com/node/14340551) rate is around 11%, while ours is around 18%. Including Social Security puts Switzerland at 17%, and the US at 24%. So, they are definitely a lower tax rate country, but in no way are they a no tax rate country. Then again, Switzerland has no military to speak of, while the US spends more on military then the next 7 countries put together. > This is the dumbest statement youve made this entire time. I have been very patient. I have stuck with this conversation, in spite of the put downs and snide remarks. I have jabbed a little too, but you can go back to most of my remarks and see that I have been more congenial. I have given you some leeway because of your age, and I am almost twice as old as you. So, you gave me your background. I will give you mine. I am closer to 50 then I would prefer. I left the house at 17, enlisted in the Navy, and spent the next 15 years serving in the military. I ended my career in a select community. I have been out for ten years this July. I am now owner of a company that does R&D and works with the government. A lot of my knowledge about inventions, and how commercial works with government comes from my own personal experiences. I have seen the best, and worst, of government - as well as seen the same on the commercial side of the house. Anyone comes to this game with the presupposition that government can't get anything done as well as commercial quickly learns that is not true. Likeways, anyone comes thinking that commercial equals efficient learns *that* is not always true too. > 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? As I said previously, that you thought was a \"\"dumb\"\" comment - commercial is very good at taking existing systems and finding ways to make them efficient and better. Apple and Microsoft is the same. They both made their mark in history by expanding on and creating innovation with existing technologies that had their foundation in government R&D projects - including the [digital computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vincent_Atanasoff), as well as computers like the [ENIAC and the UNIVAC](https://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000984.htm), and the advancements into [microsecond multitasking](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/06/did-ibm-invent-the-personal-computer-answer-no/) which lead to the first efficient and cost effective personal computers. The touchscreen was actually first invented in by [engineers at CERN](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#History). And of course, we know that the [internet started as a government funded project called ARPANET](http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/who-invented-the-internet). I think you would be surprised how much many if not most of the things we take for granted today have a foundation in government funded R&D. My company is a commercial company, and we do a great job creating our own products and innovation. And yet still, our best selling product is a design of a national laboratory that we license from them. Commercial industry is great at manufacturing and producing, something the government is not as good at, and so often they will license out designs for production to companies like ours. Some of the biggest commercial companies out there do the same.\"" }, { "docid": "573394", "title": "", "text": "\"Depending on what you mean by \"\"High-quality health insurance,\"\" it is part of the problem. If you don't care about price (because you are using your insurance pays for everything), providers will charge as much as your insurance will pay. Health insurance in this country turned into a poorly built health service subscription business because the government made it cheaper for your employer to provide you wages in the form of health insurance than in money. There are new health service business models popping up that are built as a health service subscription. Providers charge a flat monthly rate and you get to use as much as you want. The doctors and other service providers don't have to deal with insurance, and get to keep everything. Unfortunately, they are illegal in some states. Get the government out of the health services sector. End the subsidy for health insurance paid by employers, or provide the same subsidy for health services purchased by individuals. Allow any group to negotiate group coverage. Why is your health insurance tied to your job? Allow communities, extended families, or any organization to purchase group coverage. Stop requiring purchasing insurance services you don't want and will never use, like a gay men being required to purchase maternity insurance.\"" }, { "docid": "527620", "title": "", "text": "you wouldn't have to pay income taxes on the portion for health insurance. think of high deductible health plans - the employer puts the deductible into a healthcare savings account which is tax free as long as it's for medical care. right now you can also deduct the portion of your overall expenses that are medical over a portion of your income. 2 issues with your idea, though - 1. right now, there are people who can't get health insurance except through an employer. send them out into the marketplace and they will get turned down. obamacare is supposed to fix this, but if Romney is elected, it will continue. 2. healthcare inflation rises much higher than regular inflation, so if your benefits were included as part of wages and you had to buy it on your own, you would face a continually decreasing amount of money over time to purchase healthcare - a spiral. this is the issue that many have with the voucher system the republicans are proposing for medicare - the voucher will rise at inflation, while healthcare rises much higher than inflation - right now I think it's a difference of 1% versus 8-9% off the top of my head. also, for many industries, it's in the best interest of the company to have a healthy workforce." }, { "docid": "217748", "title": "", "text": "Edit: Let's forget about Wikipedia. From the horse's mouth: The cafeteria plan rules require that a health FSA provide uniform coverage throughout the coverage period (which is the period when the employee is covered by the plan). See Proposed Treasury Regulations Section 1.125-5(d). Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. This means that the employee’s entire health FSA election is available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse qualified medical expenses incurred during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of lay-off or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee. (emphasis added) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/1012060.pdf Uniform Coverage Rule The IRS has required that “health FSAS must qualify as accident or health plans. This means that, in general, while the health coverage under the FSA need not be provided through a commercial insurance contract, health FSAS must exhibit the risk-shifting and risk-distribution characteristics of insurance.” This concept has led to the “uniform coverage” rule. The uniform­coverage rule requires that the maximum amount of an employee’s projected elective contributions to a health FSA must be available from the first day of the plan year to reimburse the employee’s qualified medical expenses, regardless of the amount actually contributed to the plan at the time that reimbursement is sought. Citing proposed Treasury Regulations Section the IRS General Counsel has determined that: “Under the uniform coverage rules, the maximum amount of reimbursement from a health FSA must be available at all times during the coverage period. The cafeteria plan may not, therefore, base its reimbursements to an employee on what that employee may have contributed up to any particular date, such as the date the employee is laid-off or terminated. Thus, if an employee’s reimbursements from the health FSA exceed his contributions to the health FSA at the time of or termination, the employer cannot recoup the difference from the employee.” This rule is unfair and also constitutes a disincentive to establishing FSAS because of the exposure to out-of pocket expenditures arising from employees who leave the company. NSBA believes that the uniform coverage rule should also be revised if the or lose- it rule is changed. Revising the use-it or lose-it rule while leaving the uniform coverage rule unchanged will introduce an inappropriate asymmetry to FSAS. An employer should be allowed to deduct any negative amount arising from insuftîcient employee contributions from a terminating partieipant’s last paycheck. http://www.ecfc.org/files/legislative-news/NSBA_(David_Burton).pdf (emphasis added) Now, that's some fresh bitterness for you right there. (Dated August 17, 2012)" }, { "docid": "509111", "title": "", "text": "No there is no way to have untaxed earnings. Single Member LLC are taxed on your personal taxes. Partnership LLC is taxed on your and your partners personal taxes. An C-Corp LLC has its own tax bracket. An S-Corp is taxed on your personal taxes (but does not get taxed as self-employment taxes). At $500,000, YOU SHOULD BE AN S-CORP or C-CORP to save on self-employment taxes." }, { "docid": "10103", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know what the OP means when he says I want to invest in health insurance from now on so that I can use the policy after I retire. Generally, a health insurance policy covers costs incurred during the current calendar year (or specific period such as July 1 of one year through June 30 of the next year) and does not cover future periods. Indeed, many policies do not guarantee renewal when the current period ends (with exceptions for employer-provided coverage through COBRA in case employment ends). So investing in a health insurance policy meaning that you pay the premiums now, and the insurance company provides the policy in the distant future is something that is new to me. Besides, what will the policy include? If someone had bought such a policy many years ago, say, before CAT scans and MRI were developed, would the policy cover such new developments? Or the policy would cover only those procedures, tests, and medications that are available when the policy is written and the insurance premiums start to be paid? The long-term health of the insurance company is also of some concern. When something is offered to me with a lifetime guarantee, I skeptically ask, \"\"My lifetime or the device's life time or the company's lifetime?\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "207437", "title": "", "text": "It's up to the insurance companies that insure their businesses. Source *am CEO. Source. My insurance requires drug testing. I don't care at all, but my insurance company sure does. *edit: not health insurance, businesses run on insurance, operating machinery, to make sure mistakes don't happen, etc. health insurance costs are negligible to employers." }, { "docid": "150219", "title": "", "text": "\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"" }, { "docid": "153664", "title": "", "text": "I bought Health Insurance for myself after a period without it, and my premiums were not terrible. I was a 27 year old man, living in California, no preexisting conditions, and I paid approximately 90$ a month. This was for a standard Health Insurance plan. However, when I moved back to NY a little while later, insurance companies wanted almost $500/month for catastrophic coverage. So, from personal experience, my answer is that price varies widely by state. Different states have different regulations as to what Health Insurance Companies need to cover and at what price. In NY, Health Insurance companies can't charge different rates according to age. Also, in NY, there is a price spiral, where the price is so high, few people buy it, so they have to raise the price because not enough well people are in the pool, so fewer people buy it.... To test it out, go to an online insurance broker, like ehealthinsurace, and put in your proposed information, including that you haven't been covered for a period. This way you will know." } ]

[ { "docid": "232199", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure about reimbursement, you'll have to talk to a tax adviser (CPA/EA licensed in your State). From what I know, if you pay your own insurance premiums - they're not deductible, and I don't think reimbursements change that. But again - not sure, verify. However, since you're a salaried employee, even if your own, you can have your employer cover you by a group plan. Even if the group consists of only you. Then, you'll pay your portion as part of the pre-tax salary deduction, and it will be deductible. The employer's portion is a legitimate business expense. Thus, since both the employee and the employer portions are pre-tax - the whole cost of the insurance will be pre-tax. The catch is this: this option has to be available to all of your employees. So if you're hiring an employee a year from now to help you - that employee will be eligible to exactly the same options you have. You cannot only cover owner-employees. If you don't plan on hiring employees any time soon, this point is moot for you, but it is something to keep in mind down the road as you're building and growing your business." } ]

[ { "docid": "429310", "title": "", "text": "> The ACA was objectively bad for healthcare/insurance companies. Citation needed. [In Rare Unity, Hospitals, Doctors and Insurers Criticize Health Bill](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/04/health/health-care-bill-criticisms.html?mcubz=0) Healthcare stocks have been performing just fine for the last 10 years. In Medicaid Expansion states, the healthcare exchanges have generally stabilized and are serving the public just fine. Health insurance prices have risen, but they were rising before the ACA as well. Obamacare wasn't designed to fail. It was designed to be a first attempt at delivering health insurance to all Americans. However, like every piece of sweeping legislation, it was probably going to need some legislative tweaks after a few years to address unforseen problems. They clearly didn't anticipate losing the Medicaid expansion in 25% of states, including many of the poorest, sickest, and most expensive to cover states. I am still baffled to this day how my own state legislature sleeps at night knowing that they're denying healthcare to our poorest and most vulnerable people because they would rather have some sort of political advantage." }, { "docid": "214358", "title": "", "text": "Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29." }, { "docid": "170933", "title": "", "text": "\"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate.\"" }, { "docid": "441626", "title": "", "text": "\"Another thing that insurance companies try to do with these types of vehicles is to promote the \"\"cash value\"\" of the policy. The longer you participate in the policy, the more your cash value goes up (assuming the investments perform reasonably well). The selling point is that at any time you can take out part of that cash value without impacting your insurance policy. A lot of people see that benefit as being the same as either putting the money in the bank or investing it, when actually they could do better if they did either of those things themselves. One true advantage of the whole term policy is that if you should fall on hard times and are not able to work, the premium payments can be taken out of the cash value. That way even if you can't make the monthly payments, the insurance policy basically pays for itself. I actually experienced this myself many years ago after I lost my job and had some health issues. I was out of work a long time, but my life insurance never lapsed. That in itself made it worthwhile for me.\"" }, { "docid": "338700", "title": "", "text": "It sounds like something is getting lost in translation here. A business owner should not have to pay personal income tax on business expenses, with the caveat that they are truly business expenses. Here's an example where what you described could happen: Suppose a business has $200K in revenue, and $150K in legitimate business expenses (wages and owner salaries, taxes, services, products/goods, etc.) The profit for this example business is $50K. Depending on how the business is structured (sole proprietor, llc, s-corp, etc), the business owner(s) may have to pay personal income tax on the $50K in profit. If the owner then decided to have the business purchase a new vehicle solely for personal use with, say, $25K of that profit, then the owner may think he could avoid paying income tax on $25K of the $50K. However, this would not be considered a legitimate business expense, and therefore would have to be reclassified as personal income and would be taxed as if the $25K was paid to the owner. If the vehicle truly was used for legitimate business purposes then the business expenses would end up being $175K, with $25K left as profit which is taxable to the owners. Note: this is an oversimplification as it's oftentimes the case that vehicles are partially used for business instead of all or nothing. In fact, large items such as vehicles are typically depreciated so the full purchase price could not be deducted in a single year. If many of the purchases are depreciated items instead of deductions, then this could explain why it appears that the business expenses are being taxed. It's not a tax on the expense, but on the income that hasn't been reduced by expenses, since only a portion of the big ticket item can be treated as an expense in a single year." }, { "docid": "300438", "title": "", "text": "The account doesn't have to be associated with a specific health plan. There are some accounts that work that way. In fact, mine does. But I didn't go to a bank and open it up, it came as a package deal with my employer's health plan. Furthermore I don't contribute to it, the company does. If I wish to contribute my own funds, I have a separate Flexible Spending Account (FSA). This is not tied to my health plan. I can make qualified purchases at Wal Mart, Target, or wherever I choose. Then I can submit the receipts for reimbursement. In your case it sounds like your HSA works more like my FSA. The relevant question here is 'How do I (you) withdraw funds from the HSA?' There are a few different possibilities. Some accounts have a debit card, some give you checks, some have a reimbursement process similar to my FSA. (Some have more than one option available.) In your case you should contact Bank of America to determine how to withdraw funds from your account." }, { "docid": "191473", "title": "", "text": "LLC is not a federal tax designation. It's a state-level organization. Your LLC can elect to be treated as a partnership, a disregarded entity (i.e., just report the taxes in your individual income tax), or as an S-Corp for federal tax purposes. If you have elected S-Corp, I expect that all the S-Corp rules will apply, as well as any state-level LLC rules that may apply. Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with S-corp rules, so I can't evaluate whether the statements you made about proportional payouts are correct." }, { "docid": "194955", "title": "", "text": "Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage." }, { "docid": "385073", "title": "", "text": "It's whatever you decide. Taking money out of an S-Corp via distribution isn't a taxable event. Practically speaking, yes, you should make sure you have enough money to afford the distribution after paying your expenses, lest you have to put money back a few days later in to pay the phone bill. You might not want to distribute every penny of profit the moment you book it, either -- keeping some money in the business checking account is probably a good idea. If you have consistent cash flow you could distribute monthly or quarterly profits 30 or 60 days in arrears, for example, and then still have cash on hand for operations. Your net profit is reflected on the Schedule K for inclusion on your personal tax return. As an S-Corp, the profit is passed through to the shareholders and is taxable whether or not you actually distributed the money. You owe taxes on the profit reported on the Schedule K, not the amounts distributed. You really should get a tax accountant. Long-term, you'll save money by having your books set up correctly from the start rather than have to go back and fix any mistakes. Go to a Chamber of Commerce meeting or ask a colleague, trusted vendor, or customer for a recommendation." }, { "docid": "564344", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, me too, as I said. Actually what I'd really prefer is single payer, but failing that, getting health insurance separated from employment would be a big step forward. If people really knew how much they are paying for health insurance, things would change. I've never worked for an employer that didn't renegotiate health insurance every year, often changing insurance providers every year. To the extent that HR departments are competent in finding the best value, the current environment is pretty dynamic and competitive. Are individuals going to be as competent and well informed as HR departments? I don't know, but I do know that simply making a market free doesn't guarantee lower prices if consumers are ill-informed and bad at making decisions. As for wages, currently companies are not required to carry health insurance, and many have dropped it already without increasing wages, so I don't see an upward pressure on wages from greater employee mobility. But it's true that if there were a single large pool for insurance to be based off of, large businesses would no longer get the pool advantage of health insurance over small businesses. Hence my preference for single-payer, or single-group/multi-payer." }, { "docid": "215920", "title": "", "text": "An LLC or an S corp will result in the same tax obligations because both are pass-through tax entities. An LLC is more flexible for the situation you describe because the member and manager responsibilities can be detailed in the operating agreement. You really should get a business attorney to help you get your operating agreement in order. There's also a startups beta site on Stack Exchange that may be able to help you with questions about ways to handle your operating agreement." }, { "docid": "298014", "title": "", "text": "\"I work for a health billing company. It is completely the provider's responsibility to bill your health insurance in a timely manner if they have your health insurance information on file (it sounds like they did). If you can gather a copy of your EOB (Explanation of Benefits) from your health insurance, it will likely say something to the extent of: \"\"claim was submitted after the timely filing limit, therefore no payment was made. The patient is not liable for the remaining balance.\"\" Don't let the hospital/physician bully you into paying for something they should have submitted to the insurance in the first place.\"" }, { "docid": "150219", "title": "", "text": "\"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are \"\"we\"\"? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the policy of our company. For example: \"\"Every two months profits get divided 50/50\"\" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean. Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc.\"" }, { "docid": "453961", "title": "", "text": "\"Is it possible if (After getting EIN) I change my LLC type (disregarded entity or C type or S type or corporation or change in number of members) for tax saving ? You marked your question as \"\"real-estate\"\", so I'm guessing you're holding rental properties in your LLC. That means that you will not be able to qualify for S-Corp, only C-Corp treatment. That in turn means that you'll be subject to double taxation and corporate tax rate. I fail to see what tax savings you're expecting in this situation. But yes, you can do it, if you so wish. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) before you make any changes, because it will be nearly impossible to reverse the check-the-box election once made (for at least 5 years).\"" }, { "docid": "40276", "title": "", "text": "Hey, sole proprietorships called (don't those comprise roughly 50% of all businesses?) they want to know what corporate tax is. Hell, most of them want to know what payroll tax is. They just know it's not fun paying both halves of it. From my perspective over on the incorporated side: Oh HEY, I'm incorporated as an S-Corp or and LLC -remember those?- and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS. I'll fax you my cash flows statement. It's going to look like a severed artery. For those lucky enough to be joining us from the C-Corp world, enjoy trying to retain your key employees without seeing your payroll costs go through the roof. If you have all your employees by the balls because they don't have the skills to easily transfer [if you think you do, hint: you don't] then I hope you have the stomach to watch them all falling further and further behind and into debt. I don't." }, { "docid": "224406", "title": "", "text": "It would depend on the health insurance that was being offered, and if it covers your family or just you. We pay around $500-600 for individual health insurance for our employees (families cost north of 1500 a month). It's extremely expensive. Provide more details on the stock purchase plan as well (it sounds to me like in that case you'd only be getting for free what it would cost to purchase the stock... but that's only $10-15, so negligible in this case.)" }, { "docid": "20036", "title": "", "text": "That's really not something that can be answered based on the information provided. There are a lot of factors involved: type of income, your wife's tax bracket, the split between Federal and State (if you're in a high bracket in a high income-tax rate State - it may even be more than 50%), etc etc. The fact that your wife didn't withdraw the money is irrelevant. S-Corp is a pass-through entity, i.e.: owners are taxed on the profits based on their personal marginal tax rates, and it doesn't matter what they did with the money. In this case, your wife re-invested it into the corp (used it to pay off corp debts), which adds back to her basis. You really should talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to learn how S-Corps work and how to use them properly. Your wife, actually, as she's the owner." }, { "docid": "473959", "title": "", "text": "I agree with you 100%! >they've all just taken advantage so that wages haven't kept up and they've essentially pocketed the difference, or passed it on to their customers. Now people have less money to buy health insurance, and those near the bottom will now have to rely on the government to assist with providing health insurance. I think this is exactly what is happening today. > That last part is important, though, I would need to get all the breaks my employer gets for providing myself with health insurance. I believe up until Obamacare, people couldn't. Also, as a general rule a business can claim a tax deduction for the salary, wages, commissions, bonuses, and other compensation it pays to its employees." }, { "docid": "308255", "title": "", "text": "Let me first start off by saying that you need to be careful with an S-Corp and defined contribution plans. You might want to consider an LLC or some other entity form, depending on your state and other factors. You should read this entire page on the irs site: S-Corp Retirement Plan FAQ, but here is a small clip: Contributions to a Self-Employed Plan You can’t make contributions to a self-employed retirement plan from your S corporation distributions. Although, as an S corporation shareholder, you receive distributions similar to distributions that a partner receives from a partnership, your shareholder distributions aren’t earned income for retirement plan purposes (see IRC section 1402(a)(2)). Therefore, you also can’t establish a self-employed retirement plan for yourself solely based on being an S corporation shareholder. There are also some issues and cases about reasonable compensation in S-Corp. I recommend you read the IRS site's S Corporation Compensation and Medical Insurance Issues page answers as I see them, but I recommend hiring CPA You should be able to do option B. The limitations are in place for the two different types of contributions: Elective deferrals and Employer nonelective contributions. I am going to make a leap and say your talking about a SEP here, therefore you can't setup one were the employee could contribute (post 1997). If your doing self employee 401k, be careful to not make the contributions yourself. If your wife is employed the by company, here calculation is separate and the company could make a separate contribution for her. The limitation for SEP in 2015 are 25% of employee's compensation or $53,000. Since you will be self employed, you need to calculate your net earnings from self-employment which takes into account the eductible part of your self employment tax and contributions business makes to SEP. Good read on SEPs at IRS site. and take a look at chapter 2 of Publication 560. I hope that helps and I recommend hiring a CPA in your area to help." } ]

[ { "docid": "435835", "title": "", "text": "You can print them on any IRS-approved paper, you don't have to use pre-printed forms. The IRS publishes specifications for paper that is approved for use for these kinds of forms (109*, W*, etc). Here's the reason why it is important: Even the slightest deviation can result in incorrect scanning, and may affect money amounts reported for employees. Note that some portions of these forms are in different color (1099-MISC copy A). This is important, and using incorrect color will affect the IRS OCR mechanisms. Forms for individuals are less complicated with regards to technical specifications, because individuals must file them, and as such any complication will unnecessarily burden the citizenry. All the 109*, W* etc forms are not legally required to be filed by all citizens. You're only required to file them if you chose to do business, or chose to employ others. As such, using professional software and special forms is a cost of doing your business, and not a tax as it would be had it been mandatory to everyone. Mistakes in individual forms due to OCR failure or something else will be noticed by the taxpayers (less/more refund, etc) or through the internal matching and cross-check. However, forms 109* and W* feed that matching and cross-check system and are considered source of truth by it, and as such their processing must be much more reliable and precise." } ]

[ { "docid": "272248", "title": "", "text": "\"I have done similar software work. You do not need an LLC to write off business expenses. The income and expenses go on Schedule C of your tax return. It is easy to write off even small expenses such as travel - if you keep records. The income should be reported to you on a 1099 form, filled out by your client, not yourself. For a financial advisor you should find one you can visit with personally and who operates as a \"\"fee-only\"\" advisor. That means they will not try to sell you something that they get a commission on. You might pay a few $hundred per visit. There are taxes that you have to pay (around 15%) due to self-employment income. These taxes are due 4 times a year and paid with an \"\"estimated tax\"\" form. See the IRS web site, and in particular schedule SE. Get yourself educated about this fast and make the estimated tax payments on time so you won't run into penalties at the end of the year.\"" }, { "docid": "576218", "title": "", "text": "If the money comes to you, then it's income. If the money goes out from you, it's an expense. You get to handle the appropriate tax documentation for those business transactions. You may also have the pleasure of filing 1099-MISC forms for all of your blogging buddies if you've paid them more than $600. (Not 100% sure on this one.) I was in a blog network that had some advertising deals, and we tried to keep the payments separate because it was cleaner that way. If I were you, I'd always charge a finder's fee because it is extra work for you to do what you're doing." }, { "docid": "417295", "title": "", "text": "If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there)." }, { "docid": "232544", "title": "", "text": "\"I agree that you should have received both a 1099 and a W2 from your employer. They may be reluctant to do that because some people believe that could trigger an IRS audit. The reason is that independent contractor vs employee is supposed to be defined by your job function, not by your choice. If you were a contractor and then switched to be an employee without changing your job description, then the IRS could claim that you should have always been an employee the entire time, and so should every one of the other contractors that work for that company with a similar job function. It's a hornet's nest that the employer may not want to poke. But that's not your problem; what should you do about it? When you say \"\"he added my Federal and FICA W/H together\"\", do you mean that total appears in box 4 of your 1099? If so, it sounds like the employer is expecting you to re-pay the employer portion of FICA. Can you ask them if they actually paid it? If they did, then I don't see them having a choice but to issue a W2, since the IRS would be expecting one. If they didn't pay your FICA, then the amount this will cost you is 7.65% of what would have been your W2 wages. IMHO it would be reasonable for you to request that they send you a check for that extra amount. Note: even though that amount will be less than $600 and you won't receive a 1099 in 2017 for it, legally you'll still have to pay tax on that amount so I think a good estimate would be to call it 10% instead. Depending on your personality and your relationship with the employer, if they choose not to \"\"make you whole\"\", you could threaten to fill out form SS-8. Additional Info: (Thank you Bobson for bringing this up.) The situation you find yourself in is similar to the concept of \"\"Contract-to-Hire\"\". You start off as a contractor, and later convert to an employee. In order to avoid issuing a 1099 and W2 to the same person in a single tax year, companies typically utilize one of the following strategies: Your particular situation is closest to situation 2, but the reverse. Instead of retroactively calling you a W2 employee the entire time, your employer is cheating and attempting to classify you as a 1099 contractor the entire time. This is frowned upon by the IRS, as well as the employee since as you discovered it costs you more money in the form of employer FICA. From your description it sounds like your employer was trying to do you a favor and didn't quite follow through with it. What they should have done was never switch you to W2 in the first place (if you really should have been a contractor), or they should have done the conversion properly without stringing you along.\"" }, { "docid": "355679", "title": "", "text": "\"If one looks at the \"\"Guide to Information Returns\"\" in the Form 1099 General Instructions (the instructions that the IRS provides to companies on how to fill out 1099 and other forms), it says that the 1099-B is due to recipient by February 15, with a footnote that says \"\"The due date is March 15 for reporting by trustees and middlemen of WHFITs.\"\" I doubt that exception applies, though it may. There's also a section in the instructions on \"\"Extension of time to furnish statements to recipients\"\" which says that a company can apply to the IRS to get an extension to this deadline if needed. I'm guessing that if you were told that there were \"\"complications\"\" that they may have applied for and been given this extension, though that's just a guess. While you could try calling the IRS if you want (and in fact, their web site does suggest calling them if you don't receive a W-2 or 1099-R by the end of February), my honest opinion is that they won't do much until mid-March anyway. Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck being able to file as early as you want to.\"" }, { "docid": "555732", "title": "", "text": "\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \"\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\"\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\"" }, { "docid": "254151", "title": "", "text": "\"If you receive a 1099-MISC from YouTube, that tells you what they stated to the IRS and leads into most tax preparation software guided interviews or wizards as a topic for you to enter. Whether or not you have a 1099-MISC, this discussion from the IRS is pertinent to your question. You could probably elect to report the income as a royalty on your copyrighted work of art on Schedule E, but see this note: \"\"In most cases you report royalties in Part I of Schedule E (Form 1040). However, if you ... are in business as a self-employed writer, inventor, artist, etc., report your income and expenses on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040).\"\" Whether reporting on Schedule E or C is more correct or better for your specific circumstances is beyond the advice you should take from strangers on the internet based on a general question - however, know that there are potentially several paths for you. Note that this is revenue from a business, so if you paid for equipment or services that are 100% dedicated to your YouTubing (PC, webcam, upgraded broadband, video editing software, vehicle miles to a shoot, props, etc.) then these are a combination of depreciable capital investments and expenses you can report against the income, reducing the taxes you may owe. If the equipment/services are used for business and personal use, there are further guidelines from the IRS as to estimating the split. These apply whether you report on Sch. E, Sch. C, or Sch C-EZ. Quote: \"\"Self-Employment Income It is a common misconception that if a taxpayer does not receive a Form 1099-MISC or if the income is under $600 per payer, the income is not taxable. There is no minimum amount that a taxpayer may exclude from gross income. All income earned through the taxpayer’s business, as an independent contractor or from informal side jobs is self-employment income, which is fully taxable and must be reported on Form 1040. Use Form 1040, Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business, or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship) to report income and expenses. Taxpayers will also need to prepare Form 1040 Schedule SE for self-employment taxes if the net profit exceeds $400 for a year. Do not report this income on Form 1040 Line 21 as Other Income. Independent contractors must report all income as taxable, even if it is less than $600. Even if the client does not issue a Form 1099-MISC, the income, whatever the amount, is still reportable by the taxpayer. Fees received for babysitting, housecleaning and lawn cutting are all examples of taxable income, even if each client paid less than $600 for the year. Someone who repairs computers in his or her spare time needs to report all monies earned as self-employment income even if no one person paid more than $600 for repairs.\"\"\"" }, { "docid": "122185", "title": "", "text": "Form 1127 (updated link) should be filed in paper (with the supporting documents) to the IRS office that has jurisdiction in the area where you live. From the instructions (see the link above): File Form 1127 with the Internal Revenue Service (Attn: Advisory Group Manager), for the area where you maintain your legal residence or principal place of business. See Pub. 4235, Collection Advisory Group Addresses, to find the address for your local advisory group. However, if the tax due is a gift tax reportable on Form 709, send Form 1127 to: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Cincinnati, OH 45999" }, { "docid": "435883", "title": "", "text": "I am not a tax professional, only an investment professional, so please take the following with a grain of salt and simply as informational guidance, not a personal recommendation or solicitation to buy/sell any security or as personal tax or investment advice. As Ross mentioned, you need to consult a tax advisor for a final answer concerning your friend's personal circumstances. In my experience advising hundreds of clients (and working directly with their tax advisors) the cost basis is used to calculate tax gain or loss on ordinary investments in the US. It appears to me that the Edward Jones description is correct. This has also been the case for me personally in the US with a variety of securities--stocks, options, futures, bonds, mutual funds, and exchange traded funds. From the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/uac/about-form-1099b Form 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions A broker or barter exchange must file this form for each person: Edward Jones should be able to produce a 1099b documenting the gains/losses of any investments. If the 1099b document is confusing, they might have a gain/loss report that more clearly delineates proceeds, capital returns, dividends, and other items related to the purchase and sale of securities." }, { "docid": "225162", "title": "", "text": "Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that." }, { "docid": "28633", "title": "", "text": "\"I think I found the answer, at least in my specific case. From the heading \"\"Questar/Dominion Resources Merger\"\" in this linked website: Q: When will I receive tax forms showing the stock and dividend payments? A: You can expect a Form 1099-B in early February 2017 showing the amount associated with payment of your shares. You also will receive a Form 1099-DIV by Jan. 31, 2017, with your 2016 dividends earned.\"" }, { "docid": "546277", "title": "", "text": "Note: This is not professional tax advice. If you think you need professional tax advice, find a licensed professional in your local area. What are the expected earnings/year? US$100? US$1,000? US$100,000? I would say if this is for US$1,000 or less that registering an EIN, and consulting a CPA to file a Partnership Tax return is not going to be a profitable exercise.... all the earnings, perhaps more, will go to paying someone to do (or help do) the tax filings. The simplest taxes are for a business that you completely own. Corporations and Partnerships involve additional forms and get more and more and complex, and even more so when it involves foreign participation. Partnerships are often not formal partnerships but can be more easily thought of as independent businesses that each participants owns, that are simply doing some business with each other. Schedule C is the IRS form you fill out for any businesses that you own. On schedule C you would list the income from advertising. Also on schedule C there is a place for all of the business expenses, such as ads that you buy, a server that you rent, supplies, employees, and independent contractors. Amounts paid to an independent contractor certainly need not be based on hours, but could be a fixed fee, or based on profit earned. Finally, if you pay anyone in the USA over a certain amount, you have to tell the IRS about that with a Form 1099 at the beginning of the next year, so they can fill out their taxes. BUT.... according to an article in International Tax Blog you might not have to file Form 1099 with the IRS for foreign contractors if they are not US persons (not a US citizen or a resident visa holder)." }, { "docid": "15448", "title": "", "text": "When you take any money out of an HSA, you'll get a 1099-SA. HSAs work a little differently than a 401(k). With a 401(k), you aren't supposed to take any money out until retirement. HSAs, however, are spending accounts. I take money out of my HSA every year. As long as you spend the money you take out of your HSA on qualified medical expenses, there are no taxes or penalties due. The bank that holds your HSA doesn't know or care what you spend the money on; they will certainly allow you to empty your HSA account. Anything you take out will be reported to the IRS (and to you) on a 1099-SA. At tax time, along with your tax return, you send in a form 8889, on which you report to the IRS what you took out of HSA, and you also certify how much of that money was spent on medical expenses. If any of it was spent on something else, taxes and penalties are due." }, { "docid": "128980", "title": "", "text": "you either tell your financial department about them (e.g. I used to get a student's tax discount), or you file them separately. But you don't have to file anything by default. That is a comment connected to the question. In the united states you can almost achieve this. 90% of the numbers on my tax form are automated. The W-2s are sent to the IRS, the 1099-s for my non retirement accounts are also sent. The two biggest items that take time are charities, and the educational benefits. Nobody has to claim every deduction they are entitled to. They must claim all the income, and decide to take the standard deduction. It would probably take less than an hour to finish the families taxes: both federal and state." }, { "docid": "561924", "title": "", "text": "Shares used to be paper documents, but these days they are more commonly held electronically instead, although this partly depends on what country you're in. But it doesn't make any significant practical difference. Regardless of their physical form, a share simply signifies that you own a certain proportion of a company, and are thus entitled to receive any dividends that may be paid to the shareholders. To sell your shares, you need a broker -- there are scores of online ones who will sell them for a modest fee. Your tax forms are entirely dependent on the jurisdiction(s) that tax you, and since you've not told us where you are, no one can answer that." }, { "docid": "32072", "title": "", "text": "I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer without knowing all about your situation, but some things to consider: If you are on a 1099, you have to pay self-employment tax, while on a W-2 you do not. That is, social security tax is 12.4% of your income. If you're a 1099, you pay the full 12.4%. If you're W-2, you pay 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2%. So if they offer you the same nominal rate of pay, you're 6.2% better off with the W-2. What sort of insurance could you get privately and what would it cost you? I have no idea what the going rates for insurance are in California. If you're all in generally good health, you might want to consider a high-deductible policy. Then if no one gets seriously sick you've saved a bunch of money on premiums. If someone does get sick you might still pay less paying the deductible than you would have paid on higher premiums. I won't go into further details as that's getting off into another question. Even if the benefits are poor, if there are any benefits at all it can be better than nothing. The only advantage I see to going with a 1099 is that if you are legally an independent contractor, then all your business expenses are deductible, while if you are an employee, there are sharp limits on deducting employee business expenses. Maybe others can think of other advantages. If there is some reason to go the 1099 route, I understand that setting up an LLC is not that hard. I've never done it, but I briefly looked into it once and it appeared to basically be a matter of filling out a form and paying a modest fee." }, { "docid": "481284", "title": "", "text": "Typically that applies if the broker Form 1099-B reports an incorrect basis to the IRS. If the Form 1099-B shows incorrect basis relative to your records, then you can use 8949, column (g) to report the correct basis. The 8949 Instructions provide a brief example. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i8949--2013.pdf Although you have an obligation to report all income, and hence to report the true basis, as a practical matter this information will usually be correct as presented by the broker. If you have separate information or reports relating to your investments, and you are so inclined, then you can double-check the basis information in your 1099-B. If you aren't aware of basis discrepancies, then the adjustments probably don't apply to you and your investments can stick to Schedule D." }, { "docid": "309555", "title": "", "text": "The United States taxes gifts to the giver, not the receiver. Thus, in your case there would be no direct tax implications from the receiver so long as you are gifting cash and the cash is in Canada. If you are gifting capital (stocks, property, etc.), or if you are gifting something that is in the United States (US stock, for example), there may be a tax implication for either or both of you. Your adult child would, however, have to file an IRS form since the gift is so large (over $100k) to create a paper trail for the money (basically proving s/he isn't money laundering or otherwise avoiding tax). See this article in The Globe And Mail which goes into more detail. There are no implications, except that there is a form (IRS Form 3520) that would have to be filed by the U.S. recipient if the foreign gift is over $100,000 (U.S.). But the child would still receive the gift tax-free. The U.S. gift tax would only apply when the Canadian parent makes a gift of U.S. “situs” assets, which are typically only U.S. real estate or tangible personal property such as a boat located in the U.S. For gift-tax purposes, U.S. shares are not considered to be U.S. situs assets." }, { "docid": "267901", "title": "", "text": "\"These agencies consolidate your debt and make it an easy monthly instalment for you. They also try to negotiate with credit cards. They do so for a fee. Other option is to not pay the debt. During this time , expect credit cards to keep sending you bills and reminders and ways to contact you. Once it is not paid for a significant amount of time ( 18 months ) , the lender will \"\"sell\"\" your debt to a collection agency. You will start getting bills from collection agencies. Collection agencies can settle for up to 40 % of the actual debt. So if you had 5 credit cards , you would have 5 different collection agencies trying to get in touch with you. You can call them and tell them that you cannot pay the full amount. They will offer you settlements which you can accept or decline. The longer the unpaid debt , the more the discount they will offer. One very important thing to remember is that the unpaid amount will be sent to you on a 1099-c form . This means you have to recognize this as income. It is applicable to the year when the debt is settled. In a nut shell , you owe 120,000. You don't pay. Credit cards keeps calling you. You don't pay. After 12-18 months , they handover your debt to collection agencies. Collection agencies will try to get in touch with you. Send you lawsuit letters. You call and settle for say 50,000. You pay off 50,000 in 2016. Your debt is settled. But wait you will get 1099-C forms from different agencies totaling 70,000 ( unpaid debt ). You will have to declare that as income and you will owe tax on that. Assuming say 30 % tax you will have to pay up 21,000 as tax to IRS assuming no other income for simplicity. SO what you did was pay up 50 + 21 = 71,000 and settled the debt of 120,000. Your credit score will be much better than if you never paid at all.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "407654", "title": "", "text": "Sure you can. Obviously it means your company will make less profit, saving you 20% corporation tax, while your personal income will be higher, meaning you will likely spend more than 20% in income tax and National Insurance contributions." } ]

[ { "docid": "20584", "title": "", "text": ">if they got paid for the household chores and family care they provide, it would add an additional $10 trillion to the global economy. This wouldn't add anything to the global economy; the value is already there. It would just artificially inflate gdp/gwp measures from them paying themselves instead of being a representation of value created through trade. If I invoiced myself for my household chores, and then had my first bank ACH my other bank account for the invoice; I haven't created anything in value that's not already there." }, { "docid": "430435", "title": "", "text": "This sounds like a wonderful concept going up (a lower level employee contacting, say, a VP), but it works terribly in reverse. If you were a lower-level worker, do you want to field questions from random managers, directors, VPs and the CEO on something? I worked at a company like that, and it was horrible. It made you stop everything you were doing to answer nonsense questions because the person was too lazy to find something out on their own or through their own normal channels. It intimidates lower-level employees and makes them feel like they have 100 bosses. But then again, Musk's companies are said to have very high-stress, cutthroat cultures, so this would make sense." }, { "docid": "82119", "title": "", "text": "I know the general principles of acting as a director in a company, and am familiar with the rights of shareholders. In the last ten years or so, I believe Australia has introduced legislation that strongly punishes those directors who do not act in a professional or prudent manner. While I will of course attempt to fulfill the duties required - I am new to conducting business at this level, and am concerned about mistakenly breaching some unknown rule/law and being subject to repercussions that I just don't know about. As you have already stated, the key to being director in a company is the additional responsibility. Legally you can be held in breach. At the same time you will be able to influence your decision much better if you a director and thus safeguard your interest. If you are only a shareholder, you cannot be held responsible for decision by company, individual malpractice may still be applicable, but this is less of a risk. However over a period of time, the board can take certain decision that may marginalize your holding in the company." }, { "docid": "106762", "title": "", "text": "You will see self driving full size semi trucks before you own a personal self driving car. The efficiencies will be much greater for a big rig, vs small car or van. Right now, HOS limits time a driver can spend behind the wheel. Without team drivers, the truck sits idle for 60-70+% of the time. Large truck companies will see the benefit of owning less assets, paying less for whatever fuel they will be using, and increasing the general efficiency of their operations." }, { "docid": "545964", "title": "", "text": "The person holding the majority of shares can influence the decisions of the company. Even though the shareholder holds majority of the shares,the Board of Directors appointed by the shareholders in the Annual General Meeting will run the company. As said in the characteristics of the company,the owners and the administrators of the company are different. The shareholder holding majority of the shares can influence the business decisions like appointing the auditor,director etc. and any other business decisions(not taken in the ordinary business) that are taken in the Annual General Meeting." }, { "docid": "194090", "title": "", "text": "You can find a lot of information at the HRMC website at http://hmrc.gov.uk. If you don't want to work as an employee, you can register as self-employed (basically a one-man band), which is quite simple, you can start your own company, which is more work but can have tax advantages, or you can find umbrella companies which will officially employ you while in reality you are a freelancer and only do your billing through them. Umbrella companies can be anywhere from totally legal to extremely dodgy. If they promise you that you pay only five percent tax on your income through ingenious tricks, that's only until the tax office finds out and they will make you pay. Between self-employed and your own company, the big difference is whether you are actually working independently or not. If you work like an employee (take someone else's orders) and claim you are a company, the tax office doesn't like that. And if you pay very little taxes, they don't like that either. So self-employed is the safer choice but you will pay more taxes, close to what a normal employee would pay. Obviously you will have to pay tax on your income and NHS insurance. Obviously you are required to tell the government (actually HMRC) about your income. Not doing so would be tax evasion and get you into deep trouble when you are caught. I don't think you have to tell them the source of your income, but not telling them might look very suspicious and might get your accounts checked carefully. And unless you design a website for the mafia, why wouldn't you tell them? The bill payer will try to deduct your bill from their profits anyway, so it's no secret. Most important to remember: When you send out a bill and receive payment, you'll have to pay tax on it. When self employed, as a rule of thumb put one third away into a savings account for your tax bill. Don't spend it all or you will find yourself in deep trouble when your taxes need paying. Plus put some more away for times when you can't find work." }, { "docid": "365704", "title": "", "text": "\"You can learn very little from it. Company directories are often given share options or shares as a bonus, and because of that they are unlikely to buy shares. When they sell shares, you'll hear people shouting \"\"so-and-so sold his or her shares, they must know something bad about the company\"\". The truth is that you can't eat or drink shares. If that company director owning shares worth a million dollars wants to buy a new Ferrari, he will find that Ferrari doesn't give free cars to people owning lots of shares. He actually has to sell the shares to get the money for the car, and that's what he does.\"" }, { "docid": "223278", "title": "", "text": "Everyone that owns a share of stock in a company is part owner. Some just own more than others. According to Apple's latest proxy statement he owns 5.5 million shares of the 914 million shares outstanding. So he owns approximately 0.6% of the company. If he owned more than 50% of the company's outstanding stock he would effectively control the board of directors by being able to pick whoever he wanted. Then he would control the company. Very few publicly traded companies are that way. Most have sold off parts of the company to the public in order to raise cash for the company and make their investment more liquid." }, { "docid": "468188", "title": "", "text": "What I know about small companies and companies who are not listed on the stock markets is this: If a small company has shares issued to different people either within an organization or outside the value of the shares is generally decided by the individual who wants to sell the share and the buyer who wants to buy it. Suppose my company issued 10 shares to you for your help in the organization. Now you need money and you want to sell it. You can offer it at any price you want to to the buyer. If the buyer accepts your offer thats the price you get. So the price of the share is determined by the price a buyer is willing to buy it at from you. Remember the Face value of the shares remains the same no matter what price you sell it for. Now annual profit distribution is again something called dividends. Suppose my company has 100 shares in total out of which I have given you 10. This means you are a 10% owner of the company and you will be entitled to 10% of the net profit the company makes. Now at the end of the year suppose my company makes a 12,000 USD net profit. Now a panel called board of directors which is appointed by share holders will decide on how much profit to keep within the company for future business and how much to distribute about share holders. Suppose they decide to keep 2000 and distribute 10,000 out of total profit. Since you own 10% shares of the company you get 1000. The softwares you are talking are accounting softwares. You can do everything with those softwares. After-all a company is only about profit and loss statements." }, { "docid": "313899", "title": "", "text": "\"No you don't have to be super-rich. But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest? The easiest way to obtain a stake is to work at a pre-IPO company, preferably at a high level (e.g. Director/VP of under water basket weaving, or whatever). You might be offered shares or options as part of a compensation package. There are exemptions to the accredited investor rule for employees and a general exemption for a small number of unsolicited investors. Also, the accredited investor rule is enforced against companies, not investors, and the trend is for investors to self-certify. The \"\"crime\"\" being defined is not investing in things the government thinks are too risky for you. Instead, the \"\"crime\"\" being defined is offering shares to the public in a small business that is probably going to fail and might even be a scam from the beginning. To invest your money in pre-IPO shares is on average a losing adventure, and it is easy to become irrationally optimistic. The problem with these shares is that you can't sell them, and may not be able to sell them immediately when the company does have an IPO on NASDAQ or another market. Even the executive options can have lock up clauses and it may be that only the founders and a few early investors make money.\"" }, { "docid": "112728", "title": "", "text": "Any accounting software should be able to handle this. When you invoice them, set the invoice date to the date of the event. Then receive a partial payment against that invoice. This will cause your accounting software to display the service income in the correct period as well. So if you sent them invoice for August 7, 2014 event on May 5th, 2014 and they gave you $500 due, you would see this Income in August ($500 on Cash basis, $1000 on Accrual basis. When you received the other $500 in August, you would see $1000 for both methods). You would not see any income in May, when you created the invoice. This is better for revenue matching with the correct period. When you send them same invoice (say 30 days before the event), Set the software to show payments already received (it seems that most online accounting software will do this by default). Here is an example in Freshbooks. Here is an example in Xero: Seems they both display information on when you can expect payment on the their respective dashboards. In the Desktop version of Quickbooks (which I use a lot), it will not show the balance of the customer by default on an invoice. You will have to modify the invoice template. There are more details on that here. In Desktop version of Quickbooks, you can look at Cash Flow Forecast report to see the expected amount coming in. I hope that helps and good luck." }, { "docid": "571925", "title": "", "text": "\"I was not arguing, I was agreeing with you. People should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I am sick of lazy yankees failing to uphold the great juche ideals of self-reliance/self-support. In all seriousness though, I was hoping my wild sarcasm would open your eyes to the non-sequiter of your own argument, that Starbucks is \"\"one of the best companies to work for at that income bracket.\"\" So it's better than McDonalds/Walmart/Target. Does that make it actually good? Are these work conditions (poor scheduling, extremely small notification window) acceptable? If you answer yes, would you continue working under those conditions if you experienced them?\"" }, { "docid": "361978", "title": "", "text": "I know that there are a lot service on the internet helping to form an LLC online with a fee around $49. Is it neccessarry to pay them to have an LLC or I can do that myself? No, you can do it yourself. The $49 is for your convenience, but there's nothing they can do that you wouldn't be able to do on your own. What I need to know and what I need to do before forming an LLC? You need to know that LLC is a legal structure that is designed to provide legal protections. As such, it is prudent to talk to a legal adviser, i.e.: a Virginia-licensed attorney. Is it possible if I hire some employees who living in India? Is the salary for my employees a expense? Do I need to claim this expense? This, I guess, is entirely unrelated to your questions about LLC. Yes, it is possible. The salary you pay your employees is your expense. You need to claim it, otherwise you'd be inflating your earnings which in certain circumstances may constitute fraud. What I need to do to protect my company? For physical protection, you'd probably hire a security guard. If you're talking about legal protections, then again - talk to a lawyer. What can I do to reduce taxes? Vote for a politician that promises to reduce taxes. Most of them never deliver though. Otherwise you can do what everyone else is doing - tax planning. That is - plan ahead your expenses, time your invoices and utilize tax deferral programs etc. Talk to your tax adviser, who should be a EA or a CPA licensed in Virginia. What I need to know after forming an LLC? You'll need to learn what are the filing requirements in your State (annual reports, tax reports, business taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). Most are the same for same proprietors and LLCs, so you probably will not be adding to much extra red-tape. Your attorney and tax adviser will help you with this, but you can also research yourself on the Virginia department of corporations/State department (whichever deals with LLCs)." }, { "docid": "96008", "title": "", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way." }, { "docid": "354006", "title": "", "text": "\"The difference between TMUSP and TMUS is that the \"\"with P\"\" ticker is for a TMobile Preferred Stock offering. The \"\"without P\"\" ticker is for TMobile common stock. The difference between the apparent percentage yields is due to Yahoo! Stock misreporting the dividend on the preferred stock for the common stock, which has not paid a dividend (thanks Brick for pointing this out!) Preferred stock holders get paid first in the event of liquidation, in most scenarios they get paid first. They sometimes get better returns. They typically lack voting rights, and after a grace period, they may be recalled by the company at a fixed price (set when they were issued). Common stock holders can vote to alter the board of directors, and are the epitome of the typical \"\"I own a trivial fraction of the company\"\" model that most people think of when owning stocks. As the common stock is valued at much less, it appears that the percent yield is much higher, but in reality, it's 0%.\"" }, { "docid": "506766", "title": "", "text": "\"First read the fine print. If you have to pay it, pay it and switch company. If you don't have to pay it and there is no proof that you abused the component beyond normal usage, you don't have to sue them, just return the invoice with legal (not so layman) text like \"\"I hereby reject paying invoice number xxxx dated xxx because the black box was used under normal conditions and it stopped working\"\". In this case you wait for them and answer every other letter with the same text until the decide to either sue you, or drop the whole thing. If you choose this path, remember to save all invoice, copies of your rejections, all written/email/phone calls, picutres of the broken item, serial nubmers, contract etc. If they sue you and they loose (can't prove the item was destroied by you), they have to pay you up to one hour of legal advice cost and drop the invoice, if you loose, you do the same (100 pounds) plus the invoice amount according to Swedish law, don't know about your country. Before you follow any advice here, consult your local consumer protection agency, they usually comes up with smart options, they know a bad company with history and give you the right advice.\"" }, { "docid": "598143", "title": "", "text": "I guess you are making quite a bit of assumptions without clarifying what you are trying to achieve. As a non-resident you cannot incorporate a sole proprietorship in Singapore. You have to be citizen. Alternatively you can register a company that has its own norms like minimum number of directors and some being Singapore national, etc. As you are paying dividend and not salary to yourself, the company will be required to pay taxes on gains. So all consulting money is gain as there is no expense. The balance when you transfer to Spain would potentially get taxed as income to you subject to DTAA" }, { "docid": "474279", "title": "", "text": "Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ. In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensation committee and an independent nominating committee while NASDAQ requires only that executive compensation and nominating decisions are made by a majority of independent directors. No self-respecting, would-be-instant-billionare tech entreprenuer is going to want some independent committee lording it over their pay packet. Additionally, listing on NYSE requires a company have stated guidance for corporate governance while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Similarly, NYSE requires a company have an internal audit team while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Fees on NYSE are also a bit higher than NASDAQ, but the difference is not significant. A good rundown of the pros/cons: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-listing-nasdaq-versus-other-stock-exchanges.asp" }, { "docid": "184977", "title": "", "text": "\"I made a throwaway for this... I work in IT for the government. I was tasked with finding a vendor that provided a particular kind of software. My bosses expected it would take me 4-6 months to source out companies, go through all the paperwork and process to work with them, try to get them to understand what we need, and them aid them in implementing their software on our stack. Well, that seemed like an enormous waste of time (and ridiculously boring), so instead I wrote the software on my own time over the course of 4 months, built a subscription model around it, and incorporated a company. I've since sold the subscription based model to a number of other government bodies and clients. The government body I work for has around 250 employees, and I recently sold a subscription to a peer government body with over 1500 employees. I built a free subscription tier that my current company uses so that i'm not taking any payment from them, to avoid any conflicts of interest, and built the entire project on my own time and resources. The funny thing is, the software product I built easily beat out all the competitors in blind tests, and no one that I work for could ever imagine that I am capable of even being employed by such a company, forget building the whole stack and founding the company. In fact, all of upper management has been impressed with the software I \"\"found\"\", and how well it has worked... there has been a ton of positive feedback on it since it was launched. I'm basically just sitting on this project (that is mostly self sustaining), until I can just cash out - which should be quite soon. **Edit** to the people warning me what i'm doing is illegal, a few key points - 1) The public sector can't legally profit from anything, my job is to limit cost, not make a profit... which leads to... - 2) I'm not charging the government body I work for, it's a free implementation devoid of contract. I also ensured I do all the work on my own time, not company time. I live somewhere where most government employees work multiple jobs, so this isn't uncommon. In fact, my government body actually does often hire contractors who are also employed. So not only did I create the service on my own time, I gave it to my employer for free (other companies pay, of course) - 3) I don't live in the US, things are different where I am. It is certainly not illegal, and I would even argue that (given this is the public sector) it is even somewhat ethical. My work saved my employer (the tax payer) a significant amount of money, which is a net positive. The service is of high quality, and I did not break any employment agreements or laws in the process. - 4) I hired a lawyer to double check everything. - 5) I absolutely am not in any way using any proprietary information for profit. I'm not even using my contacts through work as leverage for sales - everything so far has been cold calls and positive references from other clients. This was a key part of the project.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "373059", "title": "", "text": "No, as a director normally you can't. As a director of a Limited company, all those payments should be accounted for as directors' remuneration and have been subject to PAYE and NIC, even if you are self-employed. Currently there is no legislation which prevents a director from receiving self-employment income from a company in which he is a director, however the default position of HMRC's is that all the payments derived from the directorship are subject to PAYE. In other words, it's possible only invoice from an unconnected business or in a consultancy role that's not directly related to the trade of business. But it really depends on the circumstances and the contracts in place. Sources: Monsoon at AAT forum, David Griffiths at UKBF, Paula Sparrow and Abutalib at AW More sources: If a person does other work that’s not related to being a director, they may have an employment contract and get employment rights. Source: Employment status as director at Gov.uk In principle, it is possible for an employee or office holder to tender for work with their employer outside their normal duties, in circumstances where that individual will not be providing service as an employee or office holder but as a self-employed contractor. Where there is any doubt about whether service is provided constitutes employment or self-employment, see the Employment Status Manual (ESM). Source: Section 62 ITEPA 2003 at HMRC" } ]

[ { "docid": "551766", "title": "", "text": "Insider trading is any trading done on material non-public information relating to an instrument. If my sister, who works for a drugs testing company, tells me that stage 3 trials of a drug look like they will fail and I trade on that information (probably by shorting a company's stock) that is insider trading. If an employee of that firm trades on that same stock knowing that the trials are likely to fail that is too. If an employee of that company trades on the stock without knowing that information that is NOT insider trading. If I know from an insider I met at the pub that a large orange producer has seen a fall in production due to a blight and I trade on oranges futures, even though I am not directly trading in the stock it is still insider trading. I mentioned that the information must be material, that means that it must have the potential to move the market; if I know that a firm is going to increase profits by 10% this year it is not material if analyst expectations are for a similar rise. You are right that small scale insider trading, such as by employees and their families, is relatively unregulated and unchecked but directors and C-level employees of a firm are required to publish all and any dealings that they have in the stock and several have been caught and penalized for insider trading. edit: http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/insidertrading/cases.shtml details some cases, many involving director and C-level employees, that the SEC has prosecuted recently. Incidentally I work in financial fraud monitoring and we use an analytic based on previous days' trades and today's news (i.e. when the information becomes public) to identify traders who might either be indulging in or receiving orders to trade on insider information. Essentially this works by looking for large changes in position against an instrument that later has material information releases relevant to it. One final thing to think about: given that being caught will generally cause perpetrators to go to prison and be banned from director level jobs and/or trading for life as well as a large, life-changing fine and a massive loss of reputation not many people with insider information want to risk trading on it, myself included." }, { "docid": "131224", "title": "", "text": "\"A stock insurance company is structured like a “normal” company. It has shareholders (that are the company's investors), who elect a board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. The directors (and thus the executives and employees) have a legal responsibility to manage the company in a way which is beneficial for the shareholders, since the shareholders are the ultimate owner of the company. A mutual insurance company is similar, except that the people holding policies are also the shareholders. That is, the policyholders are the ultimate owners of the company, and there generally aren't separate shareholders who are just “investing” in the company. These policyholder-shareholders elect the board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. In practice, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since even if you're just a \"\"customer\"\" and not an \"\"owner\"\" of the company, the company is still going to want to attract customers and act in a reasonable way toward them. Also, insurance companies are generally pretty heavily regulated in terms of what they can do, because governments really like them to remain solvent. It may be comforting to know that in a mutual insurance company the higher-ups are explicitly supposed to be working in your best interest, though, rather than in the interest of some random investors. Some might object that being a shareholder may not give you a whole lot more rights than you had before. See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions. Another reason that one might not like the conversion is the specific details of how the current investor-shareholders are being paid back for their investment in the process of the conversion to mutual ownership, and what that might do to the funds on hand that are supposed to be there to keep the firm solvent for the policyholders. From another Boston Globe article on the conversion of SBLI to a mutual company, “Insurer SBLI wants to get banks out of its business,” professor Robert Wright is cautiously optimistic but wants to ensure the prior shareholders aren't overpaid: Robert Wright, a professor in South Dakota who has studied insurance companies and owns an SBLI policy, said he would prefer the insurer to be a mutual company that doesn’t have to worry about the short-term needs of shareholders. But he wants to ensure that SBLI doesn’t overpay the banks for their shares. “It’s fine, as long as it’s a fair price,” he said. That article also gives SBLI's president's statement as to why they think it's a good thing for policyholders: If the banks remained shareholders, they would be likely to demand a greater share of the profits and eat into the dividends the insurance company currently pays to the 536,000 policyholders, about half of whom live in Massachusetts, said Jim Morgan, president of Woburn-based SBLI. “We’re trying to protect the policyholders from having the dividends diluted,” Morgan said. I'm not sure there's an obvious pros/cons list for either way, but I'd think that I'd prefer the mutual approach, just on the principle that the policyholders “ought” to be the owners, because the directors (and thus the executives and employees) are then legally required to manage the company in the best interest of the policyholders. I did cast a Yes vote in my proxy on whether SBLI ought to become a mutual company (I'm a SBLI term-life policyholder.) But policy terms aren't changing, and it'd be hard to tell for sure how it'd impact any dividends (I assume the whole-life policies must be the ones to pay dividends) or company solvency either way, since it's not like we'll get to run a scientific experiment trying it out both ways. I doubt you'd have a lot of regrets either way, whether it becomes a mutual company and you wish it hadn't or it doesn't become one and you wish it had.\"" }, { "docid": "82119", "title": "", "text": "I know the general principles of acting as a director in a company, and am familiar with the rights of shareholders. In the last ten years or so, I believe Australia has introduced legislation that strongly punishes those directors who do not act in a professional or prudent manner. While I will of course attempt to fulfill the duties required - I am new to conducting business at this level, and am concerned about mistakenly breaching some unknown rule/law and being subject to repercussions that I just don't know about. As you have already stated, the key to being director in a company is the additional responsibility. Legally you can be held in breach. At the same time you will be able to influence your decision much better if you a director and thus safeguard your interest. If you are only a shareholder, you cannot be held responsible for decision by company, individual malpractice may still be applicable, but this is less of a risk. However over a period of time, the board can take certain decision that may marginalize your holding in the company." }, { "docid": "16197", "title": "", "text": "Aside from the fact that you could now get spam calls and mailings, nothing negative at all. With your account number, anyone can send you money (which you probably wouldn't mind), but otherwise, no access is possible. In Germany, every company and many people publish their account number, so they can receive payment. Every invoice contains address, phone number, and account numbers of the company that bills you, so you are able to send them money to pay the invoice. Nobody can access the money or details of your account with only the name and number; it needs your online login user id and password, or your (government issued) ID to do so. You don't need to worry at all." }, { "docid": "147379", "title": "", "text": "\"When I receive a check from a customer whom I previously sent an invoice, I go to the customer report for that customer, click on the link \"\"Invoice\"\" for that invoice, then click on the Pay Invoice button (very far right side). I then do a customer report and see that there is no balance (meaning all the invoices have been paid). I don't process invoices using the same method you do. Instead I go to Business -> Customer -> Process Payment. From there I can select the applicable customer, and a list of unpaid invoices will come up. I've never experienced the issue you've described. On a related topic: are you posting your invoices? From experience that has caused issues for me; when you post the invoice it should show up in your Accounts Receivable (or whichever account you've designated), and after you process the payment the A/R should go down accordingly. When posting your invoice, you specify which account it gets posted to: So that account should show a balance once you have posted it: Then, when a client pays you, your cash will go up, and A/R will go down.\"" }, { "docid": "242478", "title": "", "text": "The rounding should always follow the same rule. If the value ends in .01 or .02 then you round to .00. Doesn't matter if it's 10.01 rounding to 10.00 or 0.01 to 0.00. The decision on what a company wants to do if an invoice total is $0.01 or $0.02 would be up to the company. The POS system should follow the rule and round to $0.00 if the method of payment is cash, but the company has the right to not give things away for free. They can impose a minimum cash invoice amount of $0.05. But you would do this by requiring the customer to add more items to their purchase. You couldn't just round the invoice up to $0.05 and to charge them $0.05 for a $0.01 item It would be similar to companies having a minimum purchase amount when paying by credit card. If their minimum amount is $10.00 and you want to buy something that's $5.00, you either pay cash or add something to your order. They don't just charge you $10.00 for your $5.00 item. I think this would be a extreme edge case where you have an invoice with a total of $0.01 or $0.02, without any discounts, partial payments, etc. If the customer's total was $10.01 and they paid with a $10.00 gift card, the final amount owing of $0.01 would round down to $0.00 and they wouldn't owe any more. If they had paid cash, the total would have rounded to $10.00 anyway. Similarly, if the customer returned an item and bought a new item, or used coupons, and the total owing was $0.01 or $0.02, then you would round down to $0.00 and they wouldn't pay anything. As BobbyScon said, you can implement some options to allow the company to decide how they want to handle this. You could have an option that doesn't allow a sale to be processed if the total amount is less than $0.03 and the sale doesn't include any discounts, returned items, coupons, etc. The option could be to completely block the sale, require a supervisor override, or just display a warning to the cashier. Best bet is to talk to as many of your current or potential clients as you can to see how they would like this edge case handled. For many, it's probably a mute case since they wouldn't have items that have a unit price less than $0.03. Maybe a place like a hardware store that sells individual nuts, bolts, and washers." }, { "docid": "55041", "title": "", "text": "\"FWIW, I've got a printed Amazon.ca invoice that was included in a shipment of books that I received in July, 2013. In the right-side side panel, at the bottom and in fine print, it reads: Amazon.com.ca, Inc. 410 Terry Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109-5210 GST Registration Number/No enregistrement TPS 85730 5932 RT0001 [etc.] If I view the same order online at Amazon.ca, the on-screen version does not have that detail. Interestingly, at the bottom of the online invoice page it says: \"\"Please note: This is not a VAT invoice.\"\" That probably should've said \"\"GST/HST\"\", for Canada, and not \"\"VAT\"\", which is presumably for the United Kingdom. So, it would appear that Amazon may only print their GST/HST details on the shipped invoice printout. Which made me wonder: Did you purchase something that was fulfilled electronically, i.e. no physical shipment to you? e.g. a Kindle book, an app, or a service like Cloud Drive? If no physical invoice shipped means one doesn't get the required GST details, then there's still a Canadian tax requirement Amazon isn't fulfilling on such invoices, though not as broad an issue as you suspected. On the other hand, if you did get a physical invoice [and your comment confirmed you did], then what you were seeking was most likely printed on that version, just as mine was. At the moment, I'm not sure why Amazon wouldn't also include the GST number on electronic versions of invoices (whether received by email, or viewed on the web site) but if I find out more, I'll update my answer later.\"" }, { "docid": "598143", "title": "", "text": "I guess you are making quite a bit of assumptions without clarifying what you are trying to achieve. As a non-resident you cannot incorporate a sole proprietorship in Singapore. You have to be citizen. Alternatively you can register a company that has its own norms like minimum number of directors and some being Singapore national, etc. As you are paying dividend and not salary to yourself, the company will be required to pay taxes on gains. So all consulting money is gain as there is no expense. The balance when you transfer to Spain would potentially get taxed as income to you subject to DTAA" }, { "docid": "59729", "title": "", "text": "The key to becoming wealthy as a self-employed person is the drive to be successful. A driven person, who starts their own company (or companies, should they fail), will find success. Assuming that you define success as the accumulation of wealth, then yes, self-employment is correlated with wealth. But as matt mentions in the comments, there is no casual (in the statistical sense) relationship between self-employment and wealth. While I can't say for sure, I would argue that drive is more important that the employment situation." }, { "docid": "205928", "title": "", "text": "Yeah, the vehical cloud is the assumed intersection of self driving cars and the direction most businesses are heading: subscription models. No one needs to own a car, you need transportation. Cars are really expensive and for most people, they sit around idle more than 50% of the time. That's where Uber has come in (right now). But once we get self driving cars, companies are likely going to move to a subscription model, whereas you pay $xx.xx per month and you get x number of transportation miles per month....or however they set up billing. But youll request a car when you need one, and much like Uber it will arrive. The question is, who will dominate this space. Uber has already told Tesla they'll buy self driving cars. Google has been working on self driving cars, Apple has been working on self driving cars. They're all trying to get into the space. But someone has to build all these cars. Ford's repositioned themselves as a transportation technology company. They can see this shift happening and trying to participate when it does." }, { "docid": "474279", "title": "", "text": "Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ. In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensation committee and an independent nominating committee while NASDAQ requires only that executive compensation and nominating decisions are made by a majority of independent directors. No self-respecting, would-be-instant-billionare tech entreprenuer is going to want some independent committee lording it over their pay packet. Additionally, listing on NYSE requires a company have stated guidance for corporate governance while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Similarly, NYSE requires a company have an internal audit team while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement. Fees on NYSE are also a bit higher than NASDAQ, but the difference is not significant. A good rundown of the pros/cons: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-listing-nasdaq-versus-other-stock-exchanges.asp" }, { "docid": "112435", "title": "", "text": "It's not typically possible for someone to jointly own the house, who is not also jointly liable for the mortgage. This doesn't matter however, because it is possible for two people to get a mortgage together, where only one person's income is assessed by the lender. If that person could get a mortgage of that amount on their own, then the couple should also be able to get the same mortgage. Source: My wife and I got a mortgage like this. She is self-employed, rather than meet the very high requirements for proving her self-employment income, we simply said that we only wanted my income to be taken into consideration." }, { "docid": "42558", "title": "", "text": "\"In its basic form, a corporation is a type of 'privileged democracy'. Instead of every citizen having a vote, votes are allocated on the basis of share ownership. In the most basic form, each share you own gives you 1 vote. In most public companies, very few shareholders vote [because their vote is statistically meaningless, and they have no particular insight into what they want in their Board]. This means that often the Board is voted in by a \"\"plurality\"\" [ie: 10%-50%] of shareholders who are actually large institutions (like investment firms or pension funds which own many shares of the company). Now, what do shareholders actually \"\"vote on\"\"? You vote to elect individuals to be members of the Board of Directors (\"\"BoD\"\"). The BoD is basically an overarching committee that theoretically steers the company in whatever way they feel best represents the shareholders (because if they do not represent the shareholders, they will get voted out at the next shareholder meeting). The Board members are typically senior individuals with experience in either that industry or a relevant one (ie: someone who was a top lawyer may sit on the BoD and be a member of some type of 'legal issues committee'). These positions typically pay some amount of money, but often they are seen as a form of high prestige for someone nearing / after retirement. It is not typically a full time job. It will typically pay far, far less than the role of CEO at the same company. The BoD meets periodically, to discuss issues regarding the health of the company. Their responsibility is to act in the interests of the shareholders, but they themselves do not necessarily own shares in the company. Often the BoD is broken up into several committees, such as an investment committee [which reviews and approves large scale projects], a finance committee [which reviews and approves large financial decisions, such as how to get funding], an audit committee [which reviews the results of financial statements alongside the external accountants who audit them], etc. But arguably the main role of the BoD is to hire the Chief Executive Officer and possibly other high level individuals [typically referred to as the C-Suite executives, ie Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, etc.] The CEO is the Big Cheese, who then typically has authority to rule everyone below him/her. Typically there are things that the Big Cheese cannot do without approval from the board, like start huge investment projects requiring a lot of spending. So the Shareholders own the company [and are therefore entitled to receive all the dividends from profits the company earns] and elects members of the Board of Directors, the BoD oversees the company on the Shareholders' behalf, and the CEO acts based on the wishes of the BoD which hires him/her. So how do you get to be a member of the Board, or the CEO? You become a superstar in your industry, and go through a similar process as getting any other job. You network, you make contacts, you apply, you defend yourself in interviews. The shareholders will elect a Board who acts in their interests. And the Board will hire a CEO that they feel can carry out those interests. If you hold a majority of the shares in a company, you could elect enough Board members that you could control the BoD, and you could then be guaranteed to be hired as the CEO. If you own, say, 10% of the shares you will likely be able to elect a few people to the Board, but maybe not enough to be hired by the Board as the CEO. Short of owning a huge amount of a company, therefore, share ownership will not get you any closer to being the CEO.\"" }, { "docid": "309269", "title": "", "text": "Yes it should be a ACH or other electronic transfer. However, it not unusual to have checks sent for large amounts in corporate banking. Large companies don't give large checks to tellers, they have it sent to a lockbox. However, lockboxes are suited for payment of invoices and I never heard of a billion dollar invoice. edit: Also, I believe that some of the bailouts were done in checks, but honestly I'm not 100% on that." }, { "docid": "496959", "title": "", "text": "As others have said, make sure you can and do file your taxes on a cash basis (not accrual). It sounds like it's very unlikely the company is going to issue you a 1099 for invoices they never paid you. So you just file last year's taxes based on your income, which is the money you actually received. If they do pay you later, in the new year, you'll include that income on next year's tax return, and you would expect a 1099 at that time. Side note: not getting paid is unfortunately common for consultants and contractors. Take the first unpaid invoice and sue them in small claims court. After you win (and collect!), tell them you'll sue them for each unpaid invoice in turn until they pay you in full. (You might need to break up the lawsuits like that to remain under the small claims limit.)" }, { "docid": "499348", "title": "", "text": "For your base question, yes. (Barring some major collapse-of-civilization event, but in that case you're screwed anyway :-)) On the individual points: 1) Depends on whether you choose to invest in index-type funds (where profit is mainly expected from price appreciation), or more value-based investing. But either or a mix of the two (my own choice) should show returns above inflation, over the long term. 2) Yes, in the US anyway. You can invest a few hundred dollars at a time, and (with good companies like Vanguard & T. Rowe Price) there are no transaction fees, either for investing or for redeeming. 3) Long-term, it's crash-proof IF you have the self-discipline not to panic-sell at market lows. In my case, my total fund valuation dropped around 40% in '08. I didn't sell anything (and in fact tried to cut spending and invest more), and now I have nearly double what I had before the crash. Bottom line is that it has worked for me. After ~30 years of investing this way without being fanatic about it, I have enough that I could live moderately without working for the rest of my life. Not - and this is where I part company with MMM and most of the FIRE community - that I'd ever want to actually retire. But my modest financial independence gives me the freedom to work at things I like, rather than because I'm worrying about paying bills." }, { "docid": "575127", "title": "", "text": "In all fairness, I have turned opportunities from their site into my own personal cash machine, so this is quid pro quo to me. It is my personal rolodex that self updates. I perceive value in the site. Where else can I click a few buttons and find out who I know or have connections to at a given company for business purposes? For free? I'm trying to reconcile this with why I don't mind them yet I dislike facebook so much." }, { "docid": "111354", "title": "", "text": "From my experience it is much easier to start as a self-employed rather than a limited company. You almost have no paperwork and self assessment can be done online in as little as 20 minutes (from personal experience). On the other hand having a limited company grants you a pile of papers to fill in from the start and almost certainly needing an accountant to do your taxes. Regarding the income tax - if you have no profits, you will pay no tax. And that will leave you only with national insurance that is only about £70 for 3 month (better check with HMRC for the exact figure). So if you don't have a good enough reason to do a Ltd, start as a self-employed, you can always change to limited company later." }, { "docid": "576384", "title": "", "text": "I am a freelancer based in Europe and I want to tell you: - if you are a freelancer, then you INVOICE your Swizzerland based client The word salary is improper. - So your client will DEDUCE the invoice from its taxes, and NOT pay income tax on top of that invoice. Because invoice = expense. So, ONLY YOU pay income tax in India. Your client pays no tax at all, not in India, not in Swizzerland. As you are a freelancer and not employee, the company has no obligation to pay employer taxes for you. A company has financial benefits from working with a freelancer." } ]

[ { "docid": "104988", "title": "", "text": "Yes, maybe for themselves, but for you that depends on quite a number of things. But not all advisors are scum, but accept the fact that you are their cash cow and you are there for their takings. Some advisors are true to their professions and advise ethically, trying to get the best for their clients. So search for a good advisor rather than a cheap one. And regarding the mortgage you are talking about, the mortgage provider and the mortgage taker don't deal directly, but use their solicitors. Every party wants the least of legal hassles for their transactions and get the best legal help. The financial advisor maybe both rolled into one or he has legal practitioners in his firm who would do the legal job after he takes care of the financial matters. Seems a cost effective workshop." } ]

[ { "docid": "109903", "title": "", "text": "It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals." }, { "docid": "214798", "title": "", "text": "Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn." }, { "docid": "571539", "title": "", "text": "Most individuals do not need a personal financial advisor. If you are soon entering the world of work, your discretionary investments should be focused on index funds that you commit to over the long run. Indeed, the best advice I would give to anyone just starting out would be: For most average young workers, a financial advisor will just give you some version of the information above, but will change you for it. I would not recommend a financial advisor as a necessity until you have seriously complicated taxes. Your taxes will not be complicated. Save your money." }, { "docid": "504479", "title": "", "text": "Good question. If a person has a choice, it is probably better to pay cash. But not always. If your large pile of cash can earn more being invested than cost of the interest to borrow a similar large pile of cash, it is beneficial to get a mortgage. Otherwise pay cash. EXAMPLE: A house costs $100,000. I have $100,000 in extra money. I can invest that at 5% per year, and I can borrow an additional $100,000 at 2% per year. Since I can make more on my pile of cash than it costs to borrow another pile of cash, borrowing is better. Compound interest is the most powerful force on the planet according to Albert Einstein (maybe). That isn't likely for most people though. Here is the results from some online financial calculators. http://www.calcxml.com/do/hom03 Borrowing $100,000 with 2% interest for 30 years will cost a total of $148.662. You get $100,000, but it cost you $48,662 to do it. http://www.calcxml.com/do/sav07 Saving $100,000 in a bank account with an interest rate of %5 will be worth $432,194 in 30 years. By not spending the money you will earn $332,194 over the course of 30 years. So if you can invest at 5% and borrow at 2% you will end up with $283,532 more than if you didn't. It is a pretty extreme example, and financial advisers make a lot of money figuring out the complex nature of money to make situations like that possible." }, { "docid": "69058", "title": "", "text": "\"That ain't nothing. It's really easy to get \"\"whipped up\"\" into a sense of entitlement, and forget to be grateful for what you do have. If this house doesn't exist, what would his costs of housing be elsewhere? Realistically. Would landlords rent to him? Would other bankers lend him money to buy a house? Would those costs really be any better? What about the intangible benefits like not having any landlord hassles or having a good relationship with the neighbors? It's entirely possible he has a sweet deal here, and just doesn't make enough money. If your credit rating is poor, your housing options really suck. Banks won't lend you money for a house unless you have a huge ton of upfront cash. Most landlords won't rent to you at all, because they are going to automated scoring systems to avoid accusations of racism. In this day and age, there are lots of ways to make money with a property you own. In fact, I believe very firmly in Robert Allen's doctrine: Never sell. That way you avoid the tens of thousands of dollars of overhead costs you bear with every sale. That's pure profit gone up in smoke. Keep the property forever, keep it working for you. If he doesn't know how, learn. To \"\"get bootstrapped\"\" he can put it up on AirBnB or other services. Or do \"\"housemate shares\"\". When your house is not show-condition, just be very honest and relatable about the condition. Don't oversell it, tell them exactly what they're going to get. People like honesty in the social sharing economy. And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB? Can he carve out an \"\"in-law unit\"\" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright. This is what the new sharing economy is all about. Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house. Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't! She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it! And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that. Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him. \"\"Owning it on paper\"\" doesn't mean you own it. There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it. The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed. This is called your equity. Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements, MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable. But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs. This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth. This is a dangerous situation. If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale. If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell. And that is leverage he has over her. I imagine a \"\"Winter's bone\"\" (great movie) situation where the family is hanging on by a thread and hasn't told the bank the parents died. That could get very complex especially if the brother/sister are not creditworthy, because that means the bank would simply call the loan and force a sale. The upside is this won't result in a credit-rating burn or bankruptcy for the children, because they are not owners of the house and children do not inherit parents' debt.\"" }, { "docid": "595427", "title": "", "text": "\"It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is \"\"load\"\") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have \"\"retirement\"\" or \"\"senior\"\" in the name. A good question for any planner is \"\"Are you a fiduciary?\"\" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not \"\"on your side\"\" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The \"\"free\"\" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck.\"" }, { "docid": "90153", "title": "", "text": "\"You want a fee-only advisor. He charges like an architect or plumber: by the hour or some other \"\"flat fee\"\". That is his only compensation. He is not paid on commission at all. He is not affiliated with any financial services company of any kind. His office is Starbucks. He does not have a well lit office like the commission broker down the street. He does not want you to hand him your money - it stays in the brokerage account of your choice (within reason - some brokerage accounts are terrible and he'll tell you to get out of those). He never asks for the password to your brokerage account. Edit: The UK recently outlawed commission brokers. These guys were competitive \"\"sales types\"\" who thrive on commissions, and probably went into other sales jobs. So right now, everyone is clamoring for the few proper financial advisors available. High demand is making them expensive. It may not be cost-effective to hire an advisor; you may need to learn it yourself. It's not that hard. Ever hear of a plumber who works totally for free, and makes his money selling you wildly overpriced pipe? That's what regular \"\"financial advisors\"\" are. They sell products that are deliberately made unnecessarily complex. The purpose is first, to conceal sales commissions and high internal fees; and second to confuse you, so the financial world feels so daunting that you feel like you need their help just to navigate it. They're trying to fry your brain so you'l just give up and trust them. Products like whole life and variable annuities are only the poster children for how awful all of their financial products are. These products exist to fleece the consumer without quite breaking the law. Of course, everyone goes to see them because they have well lit offices in every town, and they're free and easy to deal with. Don't feel like you need to know everything about finance to invest. You don't need to understand every complex financial product that the brokerage houses bave dreamed up: they are designed to conceal and confuse, as I discuss above, and you don't want them. The core of it is fairly simple, and that's all you really need to know. Look at any smaller university and how they manage their endowments. If whole life, annuities and those complex financial \"\"products\"\" actually worked, university endowments would be full of them. But they're not! Endowments are generally made of investments you can understand. Partly because university boards are made of investment bankers who invented those products, and know what a ripoff they are. Some people refuse to learn anything. They are done with college and refuse to learn anything more. I hope that's not you. Because you should learn the workings of everything you're investing in. If you don't understand it, don't buy itl And a fee-only financial advisor won't ask you to. 1000 well-heeled, well-advised university endowments seek the most successful products on the market... And end up choosing products you can understand. That's good news for you.\"" }, { "docid": "13657", "title": "", "text": "In short: yes, as long as you have Internet access. See, for example this question or this one about opening a brokerage account from outside the US. Your sister could even open an account here in the US and provide you with access. However, I'm guessing you're not a registered or even formally trained financial advisor and if you make bets with her money that don't work out well, she could get pretty upset with you. You might consider doing research from Bangladesh on good financial advisors and picking one (or a few) to recommend she go see in the US. EDIT: OP hopes to be a financial advisor in the future. Given that comment, I'd recommend looking into becoming a Certified Financial Planner (unless CFA suits your goals; you indicated that process is already underway), as a step towards that goal. Information about the certification in the US is here, in India here, and in some other countries here." }, { "docid": "486443", "title": "", "text": "My answer is with respect to the United States. I have no idea about India's regulatory environment. You are opening yourself up to massive liabilities and problems if you deposit their money in your account. I managed investment accounts as a private investment advisor for years (those with less than 15 clients were not required to register) until Dodd-Frank changed the rules. Thus you would have to register as an advisor, probably needing to take the series 65 exam (or qualifying some other way, e.g. getting your CFP/CFA/etc...). I used a discount broker/dealer (Scottrade) as the custodian. Here's how it works: Each client's account was their own account, and I had a master account that allowed me to bill their accounts and manage them. They signed paperwork making me the advisor on their account. I had very little accounting to handle (aside from tracking basis for taxed accounts). If you take custody of the money, you'll have regulatory obligations. There are always lots of stories in the financial advisor trade publications about advisors who go to jail for screwing their clients. The most common factor: they took custody of the assets. I understand why you want a single account - you want to ensure that each client gets the same results, right? Does each client want the same results? Certainly the tax situation for each is different, yes? Perhaps one has gains and wants to take losses in one year, and the other doesn't. If their accounts are managed separately, one can take losses while the other realizes gains to offset other losses. Financial advisors offer these kinds of accounts as Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs). The advisors on these kinds of accounts are mutual funds managers, and they try to match a target portfolio, but they can do things like realize gains or losses for clients if their tax situation would prefer it. You certainly can't let them put retirement accounts into your single account unless the IRS has you on their list of acceptable custodians. I suggest that you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the regulatory environment that you want to operate under. Then, after examining the pros and cons, you should decide which route you want to take. I think the most direct and feasible route is to pass the Series 65, register as an investment advisor, and find a custodian who will let you manage the assets as the advisor on the account. Real estate is another matter, you should talk to an attorney, not some random guy on the internet (even if he has an MBA and a BS in Real Estate, which I do). This is very much a state law thing." }, { "docid": "285525", "title": "", "text": "When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis. Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries. Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting. But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices. I think this could be down. If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble. Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit. Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal." }, { "docid": "373730", "title": "", "text": "No, you were not the stupid one. Yes many of these mortgage companies will only work with you if you are behind. . . no idea why, but I will say that yes I have seen it. You do not have to deal with the stress. . . . working with mortgage companies is not a fun proposition, they don't know what they are doing half the time. You can leave and move whenever you want. . . even if their payments are better now who knows how long till they can actually see the place for enough to move. I work in bankruptcy I have seen the stresses this causes. . . it is not fun, even if they are doing better now, try not to envy them, it is not fun." }, { "docid": "386906", "title": "", "text": "For a true financial advisor 'track record' consists of more than just returns. Is this person helping their client make the right investment choices, savings choices, tax efficient choices, EXPENSE choices? Is the advisor keeping me honest with myself, helping me make my goals realistic, my investment options realistic, etc.? Is the advisor helping me stay disciplined? For example, if an advisor has a good track record in the market, but has the investments in the wrong types of accounts and is losing too much to taxes, he/she is a bad advisor. If the advisor is not considering the time horizon of the investor, he/she is a bad advisor. If the advisor is not helping the client understand their true risk tolerance, he/she is a bad advisor. All of this regardless of their track record. Edit: You also seem to be talking about wealth managers. I am talking about financial managers. I believe very few wealth managers are actually worth their costs (and most are just blow horn prognosticators) whereas financial advisors are financial educators to clients." }, { "docid": "547033", "title": "", "text": "\"The obvious advantage is turning your biggest liability into an income-generating asset. The downside are: (1), you have to find tenants (postings, time to show the place, credit/background check, and etc) (2), you have to deal with tenants (collection of rent, repairs of things that broke by itself, complaints from neighbors, termination, and etc) (3), you have to deal with the repairs In many ways, it's no different from running another (small) business, so it all boils down to how much time you are willing to invest and how handy you are in doing reno's and/or small repairs around the house. For profitability/ROI analysis, you want to assume collection of 11 months of rent per year (i.e. assume tenant doesn't renew after year, so you have the worst case scenario) and factor in all the associated expense (be honest). Renting out a second property is a bit tricky as you often have to deal with a large operating expense (i.e. mortgage), and renting a basement apartment is not bad financially and you will have to get used to have \"\"strangers\"\" downstairs.\"" }, { "docid": "47441", "title": "", "text": "Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/" }, { "docid": "274108", "title": "", "text": "Can I pay $12,000 extra once a year or $1000 every month - which option is better? Depends when. If you mean 12K now vs 1K a month over the next 12 months, repeating this each year, now wins. If you mean saving 1K a month for 12 months then doing a lumpsum, the 1K a month wins. Basically, a sooner payment saves you more money than a later payment. The first option does sound better, but for a 30 year mortgage, is it that significant? Your number one issue is that you have a thirty year mortgage. The interest you pay on it is monstrous. For the 30 year term, you pay around 500K in interest. A 15-year mortgage is 300K cheaper (only 200K in interest will be paid). The monthly payment would be 1250 more. How much money and years on a mortgage can I save? When is the best time to pay? At the end of each year? You can knock off about a dozen years. Save I think ~250K. You can find mortgage calculators online or talk to your mortgage advisor to play around with the numbers." }, { "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": "496050", "title": "", "text": "\"In financial markets, the gains you can expect to make (whether in the form of dividends or capital gains) correspond to the risks you are bearing. There are a variety of REITs but you can expect to make only as much money in them as you bear risk (meaning you can also lose a lot of money in the ones that earn a lot). In that sense they are just like other financial assets like stocks. If you are generically trying to increase your wealth by bearing risk, you can get a better risk/reward ratio in a fully diversified portfolio including stocks and bonds as well and REITs. \"\"Passive income\"\" means making money by bearing risk. REITs alone, without diversifying into other financial assets, do a poor job of generating income for the amount of risk you bear. So why are REITs not very comparable to buying a house and renting it out? Because in the latter case you are being paid not only for bearing the risk of the house depreciating but also you are being compensated for the work you do as a landlord. Moreover, because the house doesn't trade in a liquid market like REITs do, it is possible to actually get a good deal, as opposed to the fair deal you will get on a REIT. TL;DR: The \"\"passive income\"\" generated by REIT investment is more similar to generic equity/bond investment than it is to an investment in a physical home that you rent out. If what you want is to make money without doing anything besides bear risk, you should invest in a fully diversified portfolio of financial assets (equity and bonds being the primary constituents but REITs potentially being a part as well).\"" }, { "docid": "445639", "title": "", "text": "Highest priority compared to what? Obviously priorities should be repaying debt in the order of interest percentage. Which means among your debts, the mortgage likely comes last. Trying to get a better mortgage deal however has a huge priority. And if you have a choice between wasting money and paying off the mortgage, the mortgage should have higher priority." }, { "docid": "215620", "title": "", "text": "The way this works, as I understand it, is that financial advisers come in two kinds. Some are free to recommend you any financial products they think fit, but many are restricted in what they can recommend. Most advisers who work for finance companies are the second kind, and will only offer you products that their company sells. I believe they should tell you up front if they are the second kind. They should certainly tell you that if you ask. So in essence, your Scotiabank advisor is not necessarily making bad decisions for you - but they are restricted in what they will offer, and will not tell you if there is a better product for you that Scotiabank doesn't sell. In most cases, 'management fees' means something you pay to the actual managers of the fund you buy, not to the person who sells you the fund. You can compare the funds you are invested in yourself, both for performance and for the fees charged. Making frequent unnecessary changes of investment is another way that an advisor can milk you for money, but that is not necessarily restricted to bank-employed advisors. if you think that is happening to you, ask question, and change advisors if you are not happy." } ]

[ { "docid": "179066", "title": "", "text": "\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \"\"limited\"\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \"\"not sustainable\"\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \"\"very satisfied\"\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "115815", "title": "", "text": "\"Free, huh? From their Commission and Fee Schedule: So if you literally bought two shares, then the SEC added one penny in fees and FINRA added one penny as a \"\"Trading Activity Fee\"\" Note that there are several other fees on their schedule that may not apply to you. If you had bought 100 shares instead, your total fees would have still been only 2 cents, but you would have lost $4 on the trade. So the fees are minuscule when you start doing larger orders. However, That should not discourage you from experimenting and learning. I'd rather pay 2 cents in fees on a 4 cent loss than 2 cents in fees on a $400 loss. Just chalk it up to the cost of experience.\"" }, { "docid": "552586", "title": "", "text": "As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later." }, { "docid": "593101", "title": "", "text": "Several things to consider: I don't see why your friend should pay any tax. It's not his income at all. And I am not sure where your income should be taxed in this scenario. Is he declaring it as his income somehow? The bank won't do it for him, the transfer as such should be transparent. On the other hand, money transiting on his account could in principle look suspicious, although €300 is unlikely to raise alarm. What I do know is that if you do pay taxes, 20% is not particularly high as such. There are four brackets of income tax (and tax-like contributions to the pension system) in the Netherlands, between 36.55% and 52%. Rates for personal taxes in the Netherlands are simply way higher than what you might be used to in Eastern Europe or what has been mentioned in comments. In fact, if anything, 20% seems too low. I am at a loss guessing what it could correspond to, you could ask your friend how he came to that number. There various tax discounts (kortingen) and deductions (aftreken) that apply to freelance work (and some that apply to all incomes). €3000 yearly is quite low and would probably not be taxed at all if you were recently registered as freelance (zzp'er) in the Netherlands and had no other sources of income. But on the other hand, if your money is treated as being part of your friend's income, these wouldn't apply, as he is probably already benefiting from them. There are special rules for copyright fees. Not sure this is necessarily 100% kosher but I have met people who got paid that way for articles they wrote in trade publications." }, { "docid": "311690", "title": "", "text": "Most of these blogs/websites that you mention above promote banks that pay a commission and hence you never realize there are better banks out there that offer a higher rate. I went through the same exercise to find the bank that paid the best rate and realized the truth I mention above. I currently bank with Alliant Credit Union, which doesn't pay a commission or have affiliate fees. If you find a bank that pays a higher rate than ACU, let me know, I'd like to switch to that bank as well! To give an example, ACU's regular savings rate is equivalent to EverBank's 2 year CD! See what I mean when I say affiliate and commissions run the show? Disclosure: BTW, I'm a customer of this bank, not an employee. I do have a blog if you wish to read my experience with ACU." }, { "docid": "8861", "title": "", "text": "\"Sure. For starters, you can put it in a savings account. Don't laugh, they used to pay noticeable interest. You know, back in the olden days. You could buy an I-bond from Treasury Direct. They're a government savings bond that pays a specified amount of interest (currently 0%, I believe), plus the amount of the inflation rate (something like 3.5% currently, I believe). You don't get paid the money -- the I-bond grows in value till you sell it. You can open a discount brokerage account, and buy 1 or more shares of stock in a company you like. Discount brokerages generally have a minimum of $500 or so, but will waive that if you set the account up as an IRA. Scot Trade, for instance. (An IRA, in case you didn't know, is a type of account that's tax free but you can't touch it till you turn 59 1/2. It's meant to help you save for retirement.) Incidentally, watch out of \"\"small account\"\" fees that some brokerages might charge you. Generally they're annual or monthly charges they'd charge you to cover their costs on your account -- since they're certainly not going to make it in commissions. That IRA at Scot Trade is no-fee. Speaking of commissions, those will be a big chunk of that $100. It'll be like $7-$10 to buy that stock -- a pretty big bite. However, many of these discount brokerages also offer some mutual funds for no commission. Those mutual funds, in turn, have minimums too, but once again if your account's an IRA many will waive the minimum or set it low -- like $100.\"" }, { "docid": "617", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you should evaluate the value of these so-called \"\"penny auction\"\" websites very carefully. Going to a random site, madbid .com, (which is British with UK prices, but it works just the same with US prices) they claim that someone has bought an iPod Touch 64GB for £21.18. It is £249 directly from Apple. Sold for £21.18 means there were 2118 \"\"bids\"\". I'd have to log in to their site to find the cost of a \"\"bid\"\" for packages, but you can multiply the cost of a single \"\"bid\"\" by 2,118, add another £21.18, and you'll know what all \"\"bidders\"\" trying to receive this item paid - I'll bet the total is substantially more than £249. People taking part in these scams obviously convince themselves that they are the \"\"clever\"\" ones who will get an item cheaply. Apart from the possibility that a single \"\"bidder\"\" can easily make more bids than the value of the item, if you think you are more clever than everyone else, you are kidding yourself. (If you think you are indeed more clever than everyone else, go ahead and donate your money to these companies). The \"\"packages\"\" are most likely designed to give you the false impression that you get some value for money. Years ago when I checked a single bid was £1, but in bigger packages the bids would cost say 50 pence. They also want many bidders to make sure the number of bids will be high (although there is nothing other than the website's honesty that prevents them from automatically adding bids if an item would otherwise sell too cheap). Just to clarify: These are not auction sites. In an auction, the highest bidder pays the price they bid, usually plus some commission (on eBay, the commission is paid by the seller), and gets the goods, while everyone else keeps their money. In this \"\"auction\"\", every bid costs money, and by increasing the bid by one penny each time they make sure there are usually thousands of bids. (They also offer the products at a \"\"reduced\"\" price if you don't \"\"win\"\" the auction; the reduced price is substantially higher than buying from the manufacturer or any reputable retailer directly).\"" }, { "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": "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\"" }, { "docid": "237282", "title": "", "text": "\"With your knowledge/experience, you should easily be able to find work through one of the freelance developer sites out there. It would let you work flexibly on your own schedule, and you can decide what types of work you're willing to do at rates you choose to work for. You could always come up with your own ideas for a commercial website of some kind that could help generate some degree of passive income that won't interfere with your full-time work. That's only limited by your imagination and creativity. The third alternative is to find a \"\"real\"\" job (I chuckle at that one!) like most people do. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "463260", "title": "", "text": "The answer will vary person to person and situation to situation. But the basic concept to always consider is this: What interest rate am I paying on my debt? 10%? 18%? And what interest rate am I making on my savings/investment, etc? 3%? 7%? It won't give you a hard and fast answer, but will definitely let you know if you should take a closer look at it. I'd suggest talking to a financial planner about it. Find a fee-based planner that you can turn to intermittently to make sure you are on the right track...not a commission-based planner, a fee-based one. (with respectful apologies to any commission-based planners who may read this.) My instinct is usually to pay off the debt, try to clean everything up so you don't have anything outstanding that is charging you interest. Debt is clutter, it's stressful, it can be a reminder of money you wish you hadn't spent. As long as you have access to money in case of emergency, job loss, etc, get your debt paid off and keep it paid off. You'll sleep much better." }, { "docid": "403017", "title": "", "text": "\"Most financial \"\"advisors\"\" are actually financial-product salesmen. Their job is to sweet-talk you into parting with as much money as possible - either in management fees, or in commissions (kickbacks) on high-fee investment products** (which come from fees charged to you, inside the investment.) This is a scrappy, cutthroat business for the salesmen themselves. Realistically that is how they feed their family, and I empathize, but I can't afford to buy their product. I wish they would sell something else. These people prey on people's financial lack of knowledge. For instance, you put too much importance on \"\"returns\"\". Why? because the salesman told you that's important. It's not. The market goes up and down, that's normal. The question is how much of your investment is being consumed by fees. How do you tell that (and generally if you're invested well)? You compare your money's performance to an index that's relevant to you. You've heard of the S&P 500, that's an index, relevant to US investors. Take 2015. The S&P 500 was $2058.20 on January 2, 2015. It was $2043.94 on December 31, 2015. So it was flat; it dropped 0.7%. If your US investments dropped 0.7%, you broke even. If you made less, that was lost to the expenses within the investment, or the investment performing worse than the S&P 500 index. I lost 0.8% in 2015, the extra 0.1% being expenses of the investment. Try 2013: S&P 500 was $1402.43 on December 28, 2012 and $1841.10 on Dec. 27, 2013. That's 31.2% growth. That's amazing, but it also means 31.2% is holding even with the market. If your salesman proudly announced that you made 18%... problem! All this to say: when you say the investments performed \"\"poorly\"\", don't go by absolute numbers. Find a suitable index and compare to the index. A lot of markets were down in 2015-16, and that is not your investment's fault. You want to know if were down compared to your index. Because that reflects either a lousy funds manager, or high fees. This may leave you wondering \"\"where can I invest that is safe and has sensible fees? I don't know your market, but here we have \"\"discount brokers\"\" which allow self-selection of investments, charge no custodial fees, and simply charge by the trade (commonly $10). Many mutual funds and ETFs are \"\"index funds\"\" with very low annual fees, 0.20% (1 in 500) or even less. How do you pick investments? Look at any of numerous books, starting with John Bogle's classic \"\"Common Sense on Mutual Funds\"\" book which is the seminal work on the value of keeping fees low. If you need the cool, confident professional to hand-hold you through the process, a fee-only advisor is a true financial advisor who actually acts in your best interest. They honestly recommend what's best for you. But beware: many commission-driven salespeople pretend to be fee-only advisors. The good advisor will be happy to advise investment types, and let you pick the brand (Fidelity vs Vanguard) and buy it in your own discount brokerage account with a password you don't share. Frankly, finance is not that hard. But it's made hard by impossibly complex products that don't need to exist, and are designed to confuse people to conceal hidden fees. Avoid those products. You just don't need them. Now, you really need to take a harder look at what this investment is. Like I say, they make these things unnecessarily complex specifically to make them confusing, and I am confused. Although it doesn't seem like much of a question to me. 1.5% a quarter is 6% a year or 60% in 10 years (to ignore compounding). If the market grows 6% a year on average so growth just pays the fees, they will consume 60% of the $220,000, or $132,000. As far as the $60,000, for that kind of money it's definitely worth talking to a good lawyer because it sounds like they misrepresented something to get your friend to sign up in the first place. Put some legal pressure on them, that $60k penalty might get a lot smaller. ** For instance they'll recommend JAMCX, which has a 5.25% buy-in fee (front-end load) and a 1.23% per year fee (expense ratio). Compare to VIMSX with zero load and a 0.20% fee. That front-end load is kicked back to your broker as commission, so he literally can't recommend VIMSX - there's no commission! His company would, and should, fire him for doing so.\"" }, { "docid": "18963", "title": "", "text": "Commissioned sales is dead. It might have worked when consumers were beholden to retailers for product knowledge and pricing, but now everyone can pull out their phone and understand the product, its competition, and know the lowest price in minutes." }, { "docid": "166204", "title": "", "text": "I love even _job application technology_ used online these days still don't have an option for self-employment or freelance. Some industries like television or magazines have been almost 100% freelance for a generation. My field, graphic design (and advertising), is probably about 30% freelance. Yet even those firms when posting a job will want to see your experience in neat little boxes that look like past employer A followed by past employer B." }, { "docid": "69987", "title": "", "text": "I'm not exactly sure who's confusing worker/workplace rights with union membership. Safety standards are written into law but there is little else about working conditions that is law in this country (a lot less than most people think, anyways). > I think my primary counterargument is why should a union be a requirement of a living wage and healthcare? It certainly shouldn't be. If the employer is good, then there is no need for a union. > If I work for a small business where unionizing would be MUCH more difficult should I not also have those things? I don't know if unionizing would be more difficult. In some ways it could be easier. If it's a small business problems can generally be resolved by talking to the owner. I think you're missing something though: Being in a union doesn't guarantee you anything. The law says that employers must sit down at a table and negotiate a contract with the union's members, but they don't have to agree to anything. Some unions like for freelance/contract/commission workers offer benefit packages to its members, but that's only because they don't have a consistent employer to bargain benefits with." }, { "docid": "381341", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"" }, { "docid": "361205", "title": "", "text": "Start with your local police department then move on to these sites. Fill out the United States Postal Service fraud complaint form http://ehome.uspis.gov/fcsexternal/ Contact your State Attorneys General. Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is also listed in the government pages of your telephone book Write to the Federal Trade Commission: [email protected] If you are aware of a securities (e.g., stocks) scam, insider trading, etc., you will want to contact the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/SEC.php" }, { "docid": "236507", "title": "", "text": "The commission is per trade, there is likely a different commission based on the type of security you're trading, stock, options, bonds, over the internet, on the phone, etc. It's not likely that they charge an account maintenance fee, but without knowing what kind of account you have it's hard to say. What you may be referring to is a fund expense ratio. Most (all...) mutual funds and exchange traded funds will charge some sort of expense costs to you, this is usually expressed as a percent of your holdings. An index fund like Vanguard's S&P 500 index, ticker VOO, has a small 0.05% expense ratio. Most brokers will have a set of funds that you can trade with no commission, though there will still be an expense fee charged by the fund. Read over the E*Trade fee schedule carefully." }, { "docid": "455242", "title": "", "text": "Typically the fees are charged when the order is executed. The only catch I have ever ran into is when an order is partially executed. A good-till-cancel order that gets executed in several blocks over multiple days may get charged a separate commission for each day (but typically not each block). If this is a simple brokerage account, you could avoid the whole question by using robinhood.com, which charges no commissions or maintenance fees." }, { "docid": "294517", "title": "", "text": "Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution." } ]

[ { "docid": "118730", "title": "", "text": "You are not a landlord. You have choices: The current situation is charity. And that's ok, so long as you acknowledge it. In the big picture, anything less than market rent is a gift that you are giving the person living in your house. A good tenant might keep the place in better shape, and deserve a lower rent, but that's a quid pro quo. In the end, landlording is a business. If you had 10-20 apartments, they would be proving an income to you and you would have a large chunk of your wealth tied up in it. You would keep the apartments in good shape both to be legal and not a slumlord, but you'd also collect market rent. $100/apt would be $1000-$2000/mo income to you and your family. You wife is right. As always. You have a decision to make to stop the bleeding." } ]

[ { "docid": "505900", "title": "", "text": "While I do legitimately appreciate your sentiment, I think that in consideration of the larger context of evidently widespread corruption, it is fair to be frustrated at certain kinds of madness. There is sometimes a reason for it, and most executives are in fact highly intelligent people. But we can't help but wonder how much ill could be avoided if it weren't for some greedy or careless individuals, as the case may be." }, { "docid": "134980", "title": "", "text": "This is my biggest frustration with MS. They are constantly changing the interfaces for windows and office - possibly passing the test for being a simple experience for common activities. But they always seem to disregard the existing user actions people are used to, and making more complex tasks extremely cumbersome vs before. They just don't get it when it comes to UI." }, { "docid": "527698", "title": "", "text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. If you're absolutely sure you didn't just send money to a scammer impersonating a landlord, this has nothing to do with fraud-- they're playing a game with you. By changing the account number frequently, it makes it more likely you make a mistake in entering the payment account. When they come back to you a few days past due saying \"\"we never received your rent,\"\" you'll eventually realize it got sent to the wrong account. Now you owe them late fees, and there's really nothing you can do about it-- you did not in fact pay them on time; you sent it to the wrong account! It's an easy way for them to collect an additional few thousand dollars a year. Anytime a small business or landlord says they have to do something \"\"weird\"\" to reduce fraud, chances are it's a pretense to you getting hosed in some way.\"" }, { "docid": "556041", "title": "", "text": "Then we are on the same page. However realistically we cannot change some of the stupid tax laws fast enough. The fact is, how I see it, is we must do something two years ago to fix this. This means cuts. I can be as idealistic as I want, but that will not fix anything. (yes I'm fucking frustrated)" }, { "docid": "313623", "title": "", "text": "\"It depends on the deal: and you didn't give any details. That said, there are some things that stand out regardless, and some more specific answers to your questions. First, Mortgage rates (at the bank) are absurdly low right now. Like 4%-5%; less than 4% for excellent credit. You say your credit is ok, so unless your landlord is willing to do a deal where they get no benefit (beyond the price of the house), the bank is the way to go. If you don't have much for a down payment, go with an FHA loan, where you need only 3.5% down. Second, there is another option in between bank mortgage and rent-to-own. And that is that where your landlord \"\"carries the note\"\". Basically, there is a mortgage, and it works like a bank mortgage, but instead of the bank owning the mortgage, your landlord does. Now, in terms of them carrying all of it, this isn't really helpful. Who wants to make 3-4% interest? But, there is an interesting opportunity here. With your ok credit, you can probably get pretty close to 4% interest at the bank IF the loan is for 80% LTV (loan to value; that is, 20% equity). At 80% LTV you also won't have PMI, so between the two that loan will be very cheap. Then, your accommodating landlord can \"\"carry\"\" the rest at, say, 6-7% interest, junior to the bank mortgage (meaning if you default, the bank gets first dibs on the value of the house). Under that scenario, your over all interest payment is very reasonable, and you wouldn't have to put any money down. Now for your other questions: If we rent to own are we building equity? Not usually. Like the other posters said, rent-to-own is whatever both parties agree on. But objectively, most rent-to-own agreements, whether for a TV or a house, are set up to screw the buyer. Sorry to be blunt, and I'm not saying your landlord would do that, this is just generally how it is with rent to own. You don't own it till you make the last payment, and if you miss a payment they repo the property. There is no recourse because, hey, it was a rental agreement! Of course the agreements vary, and people who offer rent to own aren't necessarily bad people, but it's like one of those payday loan places: They provide a valid service but no one with other options uses them. If we rent to own, can we escape if we have to (read: can't pay anymore). Usually, sure! Think about what you're saying: \"\"Here's the house back, and all that money I paid you? Keep it!\"\" It's a great deal if you're on the selling side. How does rent to own affect (or not) our credit? It all depends on how it's structured. But really, it comes down to are they going to do reporting to the credit bureaus? In a rent-to-own agreement between individuals, the answer is no. (individuals can't report to a credit bureau. it's kind of a big deal to be set up to be able to do that)\"" }, { "docid": "494935", "title": "", "text": "I understand the frustration, American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it? > Anyway, I think we should be doing our best to incentivize corporate formation by lowering corporate taxes to zero and moving the incidence of taxation directly to capital. That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something [like this writer](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax/65351/) outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income?" }, { "docid": "505473", "title": "", "text": "\"No, the best you can do is (probably) determine the bank, from the sort code. using an online checker such as this one from the UK payments industry trade association. Revealing the name of an account holder is something the bank would typically require a warrant for, I'd expect, or whatever is covered in the account T&Cs under \"\"we provide all lawfully required assistance to the authorities\"\" Switching to what I suspect is your underlying problem - if this is a dispute that's arisen at the end of your tenancy, relating to the return of the deposit, then there are plenty of people to help you, for free. Use those rather than attempting your own detective work. Start with the UK government How to Rent guide, which includes links on to Shelter's pages about deposits. The CAB has lots of good info here too. Note that if your landlord didn't put your deposit in a deposit protection scheme, then as a professional landlord they could be penalised four times (I think) the deposit amount by a court, so stick to your guns on this.\"" }, { "docid": "380352", "title": "", "text": "It is very difficult in New York City to evict a tenant. The tenant-landlord laws require that the tenant be taken to housing court. The time between filing a case for eviction and having the case heard is often five to six months. During this time, the tenant is allowed to live in the rental property. Note that this situation is independent of any rent stabilization or rent control aspects of the lease. If either of those issues are involved, there may be additional complications. I know that this is true based on first-hand experience. I was the leaseholder in my apartment, and rented out the extra room to a woman who worked with me. Even though we did not have a formal lease agreement, I was still considered her landlord. I consulted with a real-estate attorney in Manhattan, who told me that the situation was no different whether I was a property owner and rented to tenants, or whether it was a sublet/ roommate situation such as what I was doing. Regardless, the entire process of filing and having a hearing in Housing Court was necessary for eviction. In Florida, as else where, laws vary by county or even at a more local level. I know that the landlord files a notice and arranges for the Marshal's office to remove the tenant. Procedures and law in Miami-Dade County need to be checked on the official county website." }, { "docid": "373098", "title": "", "text": "\"It frustrates me that basically all \"\"media\"\" shops could be that way. Want a CD or DVD? Here's a kiosk; select what you want, insert a $10 note, and it burns while you wait. Need your textbooks? Pick 'em off a touch screen, come back in 20 minutes and collect them at a counter. It's all technically doable, but the legal machinations to do it on a useful scale are a nightmare. If only we could have some single rights clearinghouse that you could say \"\"I want to license *everything* for reproduction\"\" to.\"" }, { "docid": "162202", "title": "", "text": "Your parents would file their taxes as they normally do. It would be as if your parents were landlords renting a room to your girlfriend. She would not be claimed on their taxes. If your girlfriend pays rent to your parents (through her parents or otherwise) it would be claimed as rental income. The household size wouldn't change because even though your girlfriend is living with your parents they are not financially responsible for her. Example: A landlord would not claim renters as dependents or in household size on their taxes." }, { "docid": "132418", "title": "", "text": "Not only is this article just referencing another longer article, but that article does nothing to explain WHY there is this difference. It's frustrating because I'd like to know why. They say it's because of a different configuration of culture, the law, and unions. Uh, okay. That explains nothing." }, { "docid": "84441", "title": "", "text": "\"Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, \"\"resetting\"\" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a \"\"loyalty\"\" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of \"\"churn\"\" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out.\"" }, { "docid": "361314", "title": "", "text": "\"I am surprised at the amount of work this contract wants done. I'd question if it's even legal given the high costs. I suspect it's only there to remind abusive tenants of responsibilities they already have in law for extraordinary abuse beyond ordinary wear-and-tear: they are already on the hook to repaint if they trash the paint (think: child writing on walls, happens a lot), and already need to fumigate (and a lot more) if they are a filth-type hoarder who brings in a serious infestation (happens a lot). The landlord can already go after these people for additional money beyond the deposit. But that's not you. So don't freak out about those clauses, until you talk to the landlord and see what he's really after. Almost certainly, he really wants a \"\"fit and ready to rent\"\" unit upon your departure, so he doesn't have to take the unit off the market for months fixing it. As long as that's done, there's no reasonable reason for further work -- a decent landlord wouldn't require that. Nor would a court, IMO. The trouble with living in a place for awhile is you become blind to its deficiencies. What's more, it's rather difficult to \"\"size up\"\" a unit as ready when it's still occupied by your stuff. A unit will look rather different when reduced to a bare room, without furniture and whatnot distracting you. Add to it a dose of vanity and it becomes hard to convince yourself of defects others will easily see. So, tread carefully here. If push comes to shove, first stop is whether it's even legal. Cities and states with heavy tenant populations tend to have much more detailed laws, and as a rule, they favor the tenant. Right off the bat, in most states the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear-and-tear. In my opinion, 6 years of ordinary, exempt wear would justify a repaint, so that shouldn't be on the tenant at all. As for the fumigation, I'm not in Florida so I don't know the deal, maybe there's some special environmental issue there which somehow makes that reasonable, it sure wouldn't fly in CA. Again that assumes you're a reasonable prudent tenant, not a slob or hoarder. As for the pro carpet cleaning, that's par for the course in any of the tough rent control areas I've seen, so that's gotten a pass from the legislators. Though $600 seems awfully high. Other than that, you can argue the terms are \"\"unconscionable\"\" -- too much of a raw deal to even be fair. However, this will depend on the opinion of a judge. Hit or miss. I'm hoping your landlord will be happy to negotiate based on the good condition of the unit (which he may not know; landlords rarely visit tenant units unless they really need to.) You certainly should make the case that you make here; that the work is not really needed and it's prohibitive. Your best defense against unconscionable deals is don't sign them. Remember, you didn't know the guy when you initially signed... the now-objectionable language should have been a big red flag back then, saying this guy is epic evil, run screaming. (even if that turned out not to be true, you should't have hung around to find out.) You may have gotten lucky this time, but don't make that mistake again. Unless one of the above pans out, though... a deal is a deal. You gave your word. The powerful act here is to keep your word. Forgive me for getting ontological, but successful people say it creates success for them. And here's the thing. You have to read your contracts because you can't keep your word if you don't know what word you gave. It's a common mistake: thinking good business is trust, hope, faith, submission or giving your all. No. In business, you take the time to hammer out mutually beneficial (win-win) agreements, and you set them on paper to eliminate confusion, argument and stress in the future as memories fade and conditions change. That conflict resolution is how business partners remain friends, or at least professional colleagues.\"" }, { "docid": "565676", "title": "", "text": "\"If you pay her rent, how do you differ from a tenant in the eyes of the law? I ask this to show that you are in a business relationship first and foremost. If you don't want to file jointly, there is nothing compelling about your situation to force it. (Grant you, in most countries, there is a benefit to filing jointly) but here, I would argue it would be difficult to make the case. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no laws barring opposite sex landlord-tenant rental situations. Furthermore, there are no laws barring romantic relationships amongst landlords and tenants. Indeed, you would need to prove your relationship in some fashion for it to even be considered. In establishing a date of separation from my soon-to-be-ex-wife, for example, I merely needed to prove that we were not \"\"presenting ourselves as husband and wife.\"\" Once I showed that we didn't sit together at church and that she was attending parties I wasn't, that was sufficient. Proving you are in a relationship is actually a lot harder than proving you're not.\"" }, { "docid": "194014", "title": "", "text": "It's still is a problem because its illegal. Furthermore it has resulted in the decline of local businesses reliant on locals and not tourists. Long term renters in areas that are not tourist dependent actually help the local area economically. It's actually vital. No one is ripping off the landlord, the landlord gets a renter to host an illegal AirBNB location by subdividing a building or room well over capacity. This causes fire issues, clogs up elevators, behavior problems, etc etc. In my building they had to put up 7 notices on behavior, including partying, throwing trash out the window, smoking rules, pool abuse, making it actually a worser place to live. It's also negatively affecting the other people who own the apartment units they live in. A building isn't a suitable hotel or BNB especially in big cities. I don't care if someone AirBNB's their spare room occasionally, but we're talking about AirBNB hosts who mass rent and then stuff 6 people into an apartment designed for 2 and then do it for many of the units in an apartment building. All of a sudden an apartment complex with 200 units designed for up to 500 people is suddenly host to 600+." }, { "docid": "417107", "title": "", "text": "A landlord or any creditor can still put negative information in your credit report without your social security number - it just takes a bit more sleuthing on their part. If you want perfect credit, either 1. don't break your lease; 2. break it with the written permission of the landlord (by paying some compensation, for example); or 3. break it with legal permission by asking a court to vacate the terms of the lease." }, { "docid": "466642", "title": "", "text": "Don’t you hate this shit? Whenever there’s a business-related or pharmaceutical company article posted on reddit, I try not to read the comments. It’s too frustrating to read all of the comments like the one you responded to. People with no business education or general knowledge of natural economic laws just spewing shit out of their mouths. People with no real understanding of what they’re actually talking about or the real implications of their proposals, but they have an opinion on something that’s been in the news somewhat recently so by god they’re gonna tell you how the fuck it should be!" }, { "docid": "432642", "title": "", "text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"" }, { "docid": "26177", "title": "", "text": "Unless you think it's likely that you'll move back soon, this is probably not the best way to get experience as a landlord. You might want to talk to a property management company and look at the fees they would charge to do your job as landlord. You should also consider that your mortgage may require you to occupy the house for a certain amount of time. Mortgages for non-owner-occupied properties usually have a higher interest rate and vetting criteria are more strict." } ]

[ { "docid": "509391", "title": "", "text": "You're worried about your tenant. That just means you're a nice guy, and it's ok to be nice. At the same time, you can't be expected to lose money on the property or charge well below market on the rent. My suggestions: You know what? She'll totally understand. You've been super nice in keeping the rent low for so many years, and she's been a great tenant, too. At a certain point, inflation kicks in and you have to raise the rent. She'll get that. If she can find a cheaper place, that's a win for both of you. Help her move if you want to be extra nice. Then decide if you want to sell the place or raise the rent. Either option is fine. Listen to your wife. That's just general advice." } ]

[ { "docid": "168922", "title": "", "text": "Are you currently writing screenplays in Microsoft Word, frustrated with constantly hitting the {return} and {tab} keys to format your dialogue, constantly going back to capitalize scene lines or character names, or figuring out how to keep dialogue from splitting across pages..." }, { "docid": "264473", "title": "", "text": "Now days, startup business owners are so desperate for tapping into the billions of pounds hovering around various establishments that they will definitely go to greater lengths for getting or presenting their business plan to the top investor. This kind of continuous bombardment might frustrate several investors to certain extent that they will never want to listen about those specific organizations again. Venture capitals might also invest in various startup businesses beyond pitches of their own research thematic into industries or sectors where they consider disorderly organizations can materialize too. Know More" }, { "docid": "380352", "title": "", "text": "It is very difficult in New York City to evict a tenant. The tenant-landlord laws require that the tenant be taken to housing court. The time between filing a case for eviction and having the case heard is often five to six months. During this time, the tenant is allowed to live in the rental property. Note that this situation is independent of any rent stabilization or rent control aspects of the lease. If either of those issues are involved, there may be additional complications. I know that this is true based on first-hand experience. I was the leaseholder in my apartment, and rented out the extra room to a woman who worked with me. Even though we did not have a formal lease agreement, I was still considered her landlord. I consulted with a real-estate attorney in Manhattan, who told me that the situation was no different whether I was a property owner and rented to tenants, or whether it was a sublet/ roommate situation such as what I was doing. Regardless, the entire process of filing and having a hearing in Housing Court was necessary for eviction. In Florida, as else where, laws vary by county or even at a more local level. I know that the landlord files a notice and arranges for the Marshal's office to remove the tenant. Procedures and law in Miami-Dade County need to be checked on the official county website." }, { "docid": "380618", "title": "", "text": "My post has, as of this very moment, 58 votes, with 88% up votes. Vocal frustrated and disappointed anti-Trumpers can't change that. Anyway, why are you so upset that Trump reduced the debt? Maybe you should be happy for this and upset on other things Trump did that are not good? Any of those?" }, { "docid": "84441", "title": "", "text": "\"Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, \"\"resetting\"\" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a \"\"loyalty\"\" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of \"\"churn\"\" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out.\"" }, { "docid": "405440", "title": "", "text": "Is this a USA bank to a USA bank transaction? If so, it will clear in one to two business days. Once cleared, the landlord cannot stop pay it. He can, however, dishonestly claim it was a fraudulent check and attempt a chargeback. If you want absolute certainty the money will not be recalled, go to the landlord's bank and cash the check as a non-customer. You will have to pay a small fee, but you will walk out with cash. I suggest you take a photocopy of the check, and staple your receipt to it as evidence that the check was cashed for any impending legal proceedings." }, { "docid": "503192", "title": "", "text": "Here are the 7: 1. Use folders to Help Someone Who Is Not You (Right Now) find what they need 2. Too many open browser tabs is harmful to your brain 3. Save time and frustration with a Password Manger 4. Zap your productivity apps so they work together 5. Eliminate distractions and find your flow while writing 6. Manage inbox chaos with Labels 7. Save your most important content in one place" }, { "docid": "158354", "title": "", "text": "I had to do the reverse. I've had a few bad experiences at home depot, so I decided to drive out further to the Lowe's where I get stellar customer service. As an IT worker though, this news really frustrates me. I guess I can't win either way." }, { "docid": "494935", "title": "", "text": "I understand the frustration, American politics is pretty utterly fucked isn't it? > Anyway, I think we should be doing our best to incentivize corporate formation by lowering corporate taxes to zero and moving the incidence of taxation directly to capital. That's interesting, and I've heard it before. Is something [like this writer](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/10/why-we-should-eliminate-the-corporate-income-tax/65351/) outlines what you are thinking? Essentially remove corporate taxes, and then tax dividends and capital gains as normal income?" }, { "docid": "23774", "title": "", "text": "With student loans at 2%, I wouldn't pay a dime over minimum on that, and I certainly wouldn't sell an investment property to pay them off, you can get CD's that beat 2% interest. With the rentals, you could sell the one that isn't performing as well and pay no capital gains tax if you lived in it 2 of the last 5 years (counting 5 years back from sale date). That'd be a nice chunk of money for your down-payment. The risk of using proceeds to buy a different rental property is that you may find you don't like being a distance landlord, and then you'd lose money selling or be stuck doing something you don't enjoy for a while until you can sell without a loss. Like you mentioned, the risk of selling either/both rental properties is that if the Arizona housing/rental markets do well you'd have given up your position and missed out. Ultimately, I think it's about your desired timeline, if you are content to wait a while to buy in San Diego, you could have a handsome down payment, will know whether or not you like being a distance landlord, and can sell/keep the rentals accordingly. Alternatively, if you want to get a house in San Diego sooner, then selling one or both rentals gets you there faster. If I was in your position, I'd probably sell the rental that I lived in and put that toward a down-payment on a primary residence, keeping the other rental for now and trying my hand at being a distance landlord." }, { "docid": "443246", "title": "", "text": "As has been mentioned, it's largely up to the landlord. I'm in Texas, USA, and my landlord's payment service permits it, but they charge an exorbitant fee of 22% plus 0.50 in order to do so. My rent is $895/month. If I chose to use a credit card, I pay $1092.40. The miles aren't worth that kind of money." }, { "docid": "178278", "title": "", "text": "\"This might be a good idea, depending on your personality and inclinations. Key points: How close is the building to you? Do not buy any building that is more than 20 minutes travel from where you are. Do you have any real hard experience with doing construction, building maintenance and repair? Do you have tools? Example: do you have a reciprocating saw? do you know what a reciprocating saw is? If your answer to both those questions is \"\"no\"\", think twice about acquiring a property that involves renovation. Renovation costs can be crushing, especially for someone who is not an experienced carpenter and electrician. Take your estimates of costs and quadruple them. Can you still afford it? Do you want to be a landlord? Being a landlord is a job. You will be called in the middle of the night by tenants who want their toilet to get fixed and stuff like that. Is that what you want to spend your time doing, driving 20 minutes to change lightbulbs and fix toilets?\"" }, { "docid": "417107", "title": "", "text": "A landlord or any creditor can still put negative information in your credit report without your social security number - it just takes a bit more sleuthing on their part. If you want perfect credit, either 1. don't break your lease; 2. break it with the written permission of the landlord (by paying some compensation, for example); or 3. break it with legal permission by asking a court to vacate the terms of the lease." }, { "docid": "432642", "title": "", "text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"" }, { "docid": "309074", "title": "", "text": "Having been recently evicted she is unlikely to find any one willing to rent to her at anything close to reasonable terms. Any landlord that would consider it is likely to require a huge deposit. Her best solution may be a hotel/motel with weekly/monthly rates. It is generally much easier to get someone out of a hotel/motel for non payment than it is an actual apartment with a lease and landlord-tenant laws. But when you pay they take care of all utilities, and you can receive mail and register them as your permanent address for finding employment. Any other place that is willing to take someone who they know is a high risk for nonpayment/eviction is probably not going to be the type of place you want your children." }, { "docid": "410194", "title": "", "text": "Giving out your bank account number is not generally a security problem. The first time you write your landlord a security deposit or rent check, he'll have your account number. (It's printed on the check.) That having been said, in my experience, banks do not generally give out balance information to just anyone who calls them up and gives them an account number. Have you asked the landlord what he needs? Perhaps showing him a printout of a recent bank statement is enough." }, { "docid": "399915", "title": "", "text": "One of the more frustrating things about plumbers is that they never seem to post rates up on their website and instead make you call them to get a quote. I HATE that. If I found a plumber website that gave me a ballpark figure of what I can expect, I would go with this person." }, { "docid": "99020", "title": "", "text": "\"Every car company does this and its frustrating as hell. Something much more prevalent -- even commonplace -- is the car you booked not being able... not just car (much more common), but car type. When I travel I book flights/cars weeks if not months in advance. I travel on the company dime and they don't care if I get a Mustang convertible, Charger RT, etc., whatever. Again, booked weeks/months in advance. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to get off a 5-hour flight, take a 30-minute shuttle ride to the airport rental center (here's looking at you, DFW) and get there to be told I'm getting a Kia Sorento. I know it sounds snobbish, but I paid for the upgrade, I've still got an hour drive to XYZ, and I want something fun to drive. And they know, and I know, that bitching and moaning does absolutely nothing. If X car isn't on the lot, I'm not getting it, unless Jesus Christ himself comes down and brings a Hemi with him. I always see first timers there -- dads screaming at the desk agent with the wife and kids waiting on the benches, obviously exhausted and embarrassed -- trying to get the Tahoe or whatever they reserved. \"\"Let me speak to your manager.\"\" I have seen this maybe 5-6x, and every. single. time. the wife ends up calming the husband down, wife apologizes to the desk agent, and they take their Hyundai Santa Fe or whatever. It's like the twilight zone every time I see it. \"\"Is this family still here from last time? Nope, new family.\"\" TLDR; Convertible wasn't available, got the moped. Kind of like a convertible, I guess.\"" }, { "docid": "98372", "title": "", "text": "Generally speaking, yes, you're obliged to pay rent for the remainder of the lease term. But the landlord is obliged to mitigate damages, so if you can find a suitable tenant the landlord has to let you out of the lease." } ]

[ { "docid": "363810", "title": "", "text": "\"If you're losing money or breaking even, you own a bad investment. The problem you have is that you are emotionally invested in your tenant. That isn't a bad thing in general but it's costing you money and, unless interest rates fall enough to justify a refi or property taxes go down in your area, that's kind of unlikely to change. Option #1 - Tell your wife that you are willing to accept a loss up to a certain level because of your long term relationship with your tenant. In a perfect world, the two of you would then discuss what the \"\"magic number\"\" would be where you got out and come to a compromise. For example, if you are comfortable losing up to $3,000 per year and she is unhappy with any loss, you may agree on selling the house when your losses climb to $1,500. In a less perfect world, it would cause an argument as she has already told you what she wants you to do. Option #2 - Raise the rent to the break even point. From what you've said, this will likely result in the loss of your tenant but you could then rent to someone else for significantly more. Option #3 - Sell the house. It's an investment property which means it's supposed to make money for you. It can do that very quickly by way of a sale and then it's no longer your problem. Option #4 - Sell the house to your tenant. You bought it for $50,000 and it's currently worth $150,000 (roughly). The problem you face is that property taxes have gone up and caused your mortgage to increase past your tenants ability to pay. My guess is, after 15 years, your payoff is somewhere in the high $20's to mid 30's assuming you got a 30 year loan and haven't refinanced. If you sell to her for say $75,000 (or even up to $90,000) you will still make a profit (wife is happy), she will get a mortgage she can afford and be able to stay in the house (you and the tenant are happy). Added bonus is that her property taxes would be lower (assuming a different rate for investment property in your area). I would discuss this at length with your wife as well before making such an offer. Option #5 - Get a property management company. As mentioned above, they will keep a percentage but will remove your emotions from the equation altogether and turn the situation into a winner. I don't know if your wife is right in saying you don't have the stomach for this, but I do think your heart is getting in the way in this particular situation. I get the feeling that if your tenant was 25 years old and had only been renting from you since last October, you would have no problem raising the rent to market levels at every renewal.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "181616", "title": "", "text": "Per Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 8-203: (d) (1) (i) The landlord shall maintain all security deposits in federally insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, which do business in the State. (ii) Security deposit accounts shall be maintained in branches of the financial institutions which are located within the State and the accounts shall be devoted exclusively to security deposits and bear interest. (iii) A security deposit shall be deposited in an account within 30 days after the landlord receives it. (iv) The aggregate amount of the accounts shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security deposits for which the landlord is liable. (2) (i) In lieu of the accounts described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the landlord may hold the security deposits in insured certificates of deposit at branches of federally insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, located in the State or in securities issued by the federal government or the State of Maryland. (ii) In the aggregate certificates of deposit or securities shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security deposits for which the landlord is liable. As such, one or more accounts at your preference; it's up to the bank how to treat the account, so it may be a personal account or it may be a 'commercial' account depending on how they treat it (but it must be separate from your personal funds). A CD is perhaps the easiest way to go, as it's not a separate account exactly but it's easily separable from your own funds (and has better interest). You should also note (further down on that page) that you must pay 3% interest, once per six months; so try to get an account that pays as close as possible to that. You likely won't get 3% right now even in a CD, so consider this as an expense (and you'll probably find many people won't take security deposits in many situations as a result)." }, { "docid": "215066", "title": "", "text": "\"The truth is anyone can sue anyone for anything. So yes you could be sued, but the more important part to measure is the probability of success. While this is probably more of a legal stack exchange question, in order for a successful suit there has to be proven at least some negligence on your part in the situation you cite. The very fact that the landlord is not willing to turn on the heat is probably enough to absolve you from any liability. Once you go down to a local store and purchase a UL certified heater then a suit would have a very low probability of success. Perhaps a case could be made if you made your own heater and it burned down the house. But that would require finding a jury that is sympathetic to landlords that will not provide heat for their tenants (highly unlikely). Could the landlord sue the heater company? Yes and would likely receive an out of court settlement. Even in the case that liability can be proven on your part, it is very unlikely you would be targeted. These type of suits target \"\"deep pockets\"\" or those with wealth. Unless something is specifically known about you having a high level of net worth a civil suit will not be brought against a \"\"room renter\"\" because of the lack of funds. People in your demographic tend not to have a lot of money. (No offense intended, I was there myself once.) In the case that you do have a high net worth, then get renters insurance and possibly an umbrella policy. It is a small price to pay to protect a significant amount of assets. If I was in your shoes here is what I would do:\"" }, { "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": "568834", "title": "", "text": "Fining fitting plus size clothes for men can be quite a frustrating process. Most stores will only stock regular sizes for clothes. However, there are options that a plus size wearer can pursue. For years XXLLENT have pride in producing well made large men's plus size clothing for big and curvy men." }, { "docid": "306884", "title": "", "text": "Because I've seen it countless times at all levels of the workforce. It's very frustrating when an incompetent woman who constantly leaves early and comes in late gets promoted just because they want more females at higher ranks. In the end it just makes the companies less profitable and worse at what they do, as the stock market routinely shows when a company announces a new diversity initiative and their stock immediately goes down. But men are evil so I guess we deserve to reap fewer rewards for our labors." }, { "docid": "263734", "title": "", "text": "A large part of the cost seems to be that he created the physical space from scratch: > Because Tortosa chose a brand-new building that had never been occupied, every single thing had to be built in. The upside is that he was able to create his dream space from scratch. The downside: That it cost him much more time and money. He spent approximately $500,000 doing that, and he received $100,000 from the landlord for doing it. So he's out $400k. The landlord will get a furnished space if he folds." }, { "docid": "552256", "title": "", "text": "That's really kind of the frustrating and problematic part of it. Their service is impeccable, but it should also cost a lot more than it does, so they have to do Monopoly type tactics to keep it sustainable in the short term. I love Amazon but it's really interesting how everyone (myself included) is just kinda nonchalant about them becoming a monopoly." }, { "docid": "370644", "title": "", "text": "There's nothing wrong with it. Living in a two-family house and renting the downstairs was a fairly standard path to the middle class and home ownership in the 20th century. Basically, if market conditions are good, you'll have someone else paying your mortgage. The disadvantage of the situation is that you're a landlord. So you have to deal with your tenant, who is also a neighbor. Most tenants are fine, but the occasional difficult person may come out of the woodwork. That model of achieving home ownership became less popular in the late 60's-early 70's when the law allowed two incomes to be used for mortgage underwriting. Also, as suburbanization became a national trend, absentee landlords became more common Sounds like you are in the right place at the right time, and have stumbled into a good deal." }, { "docid": "132418", "title": "", "text": "Not only is this article just referencing another longer article, but that article does nothing to explain WHY there is this difference. It's frustrating because I'd like to know why. They say it's because of a different configuration of culture, the law, and unions. Uh, okay. That explains nothing." }, { "docid": "399915", "title": "", "text": "One of the more frustrating things about plumbers is that they never seem to post rates up on their website and instead make you call them to get a quote. I HATE that. If I found a plumber website that gave me a ballpark figure of what I can expect, I would go with this person." }, { "docid": "33003", "title": "", "text": "$900 seems like a fair cost of minor repair. As a landlord, I repaint and repatch the walls if there are any holes. Labor is also expensive now a days (especially here in the West Coast). HOWEVER, this is why there is a security deposit. To make sure things like this is covered after move out. NOW, you could ask the landlord for an itemized invoice of the cost of repairs. Which then you could rationalize the costs of repairs. I usually take the security deposit, then deduct any costs that were need during repair. And give the remaining difference back to the tenant." }, { "docid": "503742", "title": "", "text": "\"I have been a landlord in Texas for just over 3 years now. I still feel like a novice, but I will give you the benefit of my experience. If you are relying on rental properties for current income versus a long term return you are going to have to do a good job at shopping for bargains to get monthly cash flow versus equity growth that is locked up in the property until you sell it. If you want to pull a lot of cash out of a property on a regular basis you probably are going to have to get into flipping them, which is decidedly not passive investing. Also, it is easy to underestimate the expenses associated with rental properties. Texas is pretty landlord friendly legally, however it does have higher than usual property taxes, which will eat into your return. Also, you need to factor in maintenance, vacancy, tenant turnover costs, etc. It can add up to a lot more than you would expect. If you are handy and can do a lot of repairs yourself you can increase your return, but that makes it less of a passive investment. The two most common rules I have heard for initially evaluating whether an investment property is likely to be cash flow positive are the 1% and 50% rules. The 1% rule says the expected monthly rent needs to be 1% or greater of the purchase price of the house. So your hypothetical $150K/$10K scenario doesn't pass that test. Some people say this rule is 2% for new landlords, but in my experience you'd have to get lucky in Texas to find a house priced that competitively that didn't need a lot of work to get rents that high. The 50% rule says that the rent needs to be double your mortgage payment to account for expenses. You also have to factor in the hassle of dealing with tenants, the following are not going to happen when you own a mutual fund, but are almost inevitable if you are a landlord long enough: For whatever reason you have to go to court and evict a tenant. A tenant that probably lost their job, or had major medical issues. The nicest tenant you ever met with the cutest kids in the world that you are threatening to make homeless. Every fiber of your being wants to cut them some slack, but you have a mortgage to pay and can't set an expectation that paying the rent on time is a suggestion not a rule. or the tenant, who seemed nice at first, but now considers you \"\"the man\"\" decides to fight the eviction and won't move out. You have to go through a court process, then eventually get the Sheriff to come out and forcibly remove them from the property, which they are treating like crap because they are mad at you. All the while not paying rent or letting you re-let the place. The tenant isn't maintaining the lawn and the HOA is getting on your butt about it. Do you pay someone to mow the grass for them and then try to squeeze the money out of the tenant who \"\"never agreed to pay for that\"\"? You rent to a college kid who has never lived on their own and has adopted you as their new parent figure. \"\"The light in the closet went out, can you come replace the bulb?\"\" Tenants flat out lying to your face. \"\"Of course I don't have any pets that I didn't pay the deposit for!\"\" (Pics all over facebook of their kids playing with a dog in the \"\"pet-free\"\" house)\"" }, { "docid": "427391", "title": "", "text": "Normally if you sublet your apartment, the landlord would pay you back the security deposit and the new tenant would need to pay a new security deposit to the landlord. (In my experience) You never want to get in a situation where something like this happens. This is not normally how sublets are structured." }, { "docid": "361314", "title": "", "text": "\"I am surprised at the amount of work this contract wants done. I'd question if it's even legal given the high costs. I suspect it's only there to remind abusive tenants of responsibilities they already have in law for extraordinary abuse beyond ordinary wear-and-tear: they are already on the hook to repaint if they trash the paint (think: child writing on walls, happens a lot), and already need to fumigate (and a lot more) if they are a filth-type hoarder who brings in a serious infestation (happens a lot). The landlord can already go after these people for additional money beyond the deposit. But that's not you. So don't freak out about those clauses, until you talk to the landlord and see what he's really after. Almost certainly, he really wants a \"\"fit and ready to rent\"\" unit upon your departure, so he doesn't have to take the unit off the market for months fixing it. As long as that's done, there's no reasonable reason for further work -- a decent landlord wouldn't require that. Nor would a court, IMO. The trouble with living in a place for awhile is you become blind to its deficiencies. What's more, it's rather difficult to \"\"size up\"\" a unit as ready when it's still occupied by your stuff. A unit will look rather different when reduced to a bare room, without furniture and whatnot distracting you. Add to it a dose of vanity and it becomes hard to convince yourself of defects others will easily see. So, tread carefully here. If push comes to shove, first stop is whether it's even legal. Cities and states with heavy tenant populations tend to have much more detailed laws, and as a rule, they favor the tenant. Right off the bat, in most states the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear-and-tear. In my opinion, 6 years of ordinary, exempt wear would justify a repaint, so that shouldn't be on the tenant at all. As for the fumigation, I'm not in Florida so I don't know the deal, maybe there's some special environmental issue there which somehow makes that reasonable, it sure wouldn't fly in CA. Again that assumes you're a reasonable prudent tenant, not a slob or hoarder. As for the pro carpet cleaning, that's par for the course in any of the tough rent control areas I've seen, so that's gotten a pass from the legislators. Though $600 seems awfully high. Other than that, you can argue the terms are \"\"unconscionable\"\" -- too much of a raw deal to even be fair. However, this will depend on the opinion of a judge. Hit or miss. I'm hoping your landlord will be happy to negotiate based on the good condition of the unit (which he may not know; landlords rarely visit tenant units unless they really need to.) You certainly should make the case that you make here; that the work is not really needed and it's prohibitive. Your best defense against unconscionable deals is don't sign them. Remember, you didn't know the guy when you initially signed... the now-objectionable language should have been a big red flag back then, saying this guy is epic evil, run screaming. (even if that turned out not to be true, you should't have hung around to find out.) You may have gotten lucky this time, but don't make that mistake again. Unless one of the above pans out, though... a deal is a deal. You gave your word. The powerful act here is to keep your word. Forgive me for getting ontological, but successful people say it creates success for them. And here's the thing. You have to read your contracts because you can't keep your word if you don't know what word you gave. It's a common mistake: thinking good business is trust, hope, faith, submission or giving your all. No. In business, you take the time to hammer out mutually beneficial (win-win) agreements, and you set them on paper to eliminate confusion, argument and stress in the future as memories fade and conditions change. That conflict resolution is how business partners remain friends, or at least professional colleagues.\"" }, { "docid": "99020", "title": "", "text": "\"Every car company does this and its frustrating as hell. Something much more prevalent -- even commonplace -- is the car you booked not being able... not just car (much more common), but car type. When I travel I book flights/cars weeks if not months in advance. I travel on the company dime and they don't care if I get a Mustang convertible, Charger RT, etc., whatever. Again, booked weeks/months in advance. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to get off a 5-hour flight, take a 30-minute shuttle ride to the airport rental center (here's looking at you, DFW) and get there to be told I'm getting a Kia Sorento. I know it sounds snobbish, but I paid for the upgrade, I've still got an hour drive to XYZ, and I want something fun to drive. And they know, and I know, that bitching and moaning does absolutely nothing. If X car isn't on the lot, I'm not getting it, unless Jesus Christ himself comes down and brings a Hemi with him. I always see first timers there -- dads screaming at the desk agent with the wife and kids waiting on the benches, obviously exhausted and embarrassed -- trying to get the Tahoe or whatever they reserved. \"\"Let me speak to your manager.\"\" I have seen this maybe 5-6x, and every. single. time. the wife ends up calming the husband down, wife apologizes to the desk agent, and they take their Hyundai Santa Fe or whatever. It's like the twilight zone every time I see it. \"\"Is this family still here from last time? Nope, new family.\"\" TLDR; Convertible wasn't available, got the moped. Kind of like a convertible, I guess.\"" }, { "docid": "158354", "title": "", "text": "I had to do the reverse. I've had a few bad experiences at home depot, so I decided to drive out further to the Lowe's where I get stellar customer service. As an IT worker though, this news really frustrates me. I guess I can't win either way." }, { "docid": "305317", "title": "", "text": "For being a real estate billionaire and businessman, it's ironic he's kept unusually quiet about this monumental issue. My understanding is he's had (and has) the opportunity to stop the quarterly sweep/theft with one call to his Treasury Secretary, but so far chose not to. And for someone that seems committed to reversing most anything implemented by his predecessor, it's frustrating he's not all over this." }, { "docid": "71424", "title": "", "text": "Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers. Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?). This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance. My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently. There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord. Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release." }, { "docid": "436875", "title": "", "text": "You need to get some thing called landlord insurance, tenants only covers his belongings. Any property damage caused deliberately or unknowingly is not covered in this, its upon the owner to get landlord insurance." } ]

[ { "docid": "224654", "title": "", "text": "Renting your property out at less than market rates is a form of charity. Your heart says that this is the right thing to do, your bank account says no. And so does your wife. This isn't a question for the Money stack exchange, I think ... But since you are asking here:" } ]

[ { "docid": "427391", "title": "", "text": "Normally if you sublet your apartment, the landlord would pay you back the security deposit and the new tenant would need to pay a new security deposit to the landlord. (In my experience) You never want to get in a situation where something like this happens. This is not normally how sublets are structured." }, { "docid": "181616", "title": "", "text": "Per Md. REAL PROPERTY Code Ann. § 8-203: (d) (1) (i) The landlord shall maintain all security deposits in federally insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, which do business in the State. (ii) Security deposit accounts shall be maintained in branches of the financial institutions which are located within the State and the accounts shall be devoted exclusively to security deposits and bear interest. (iii) A security deposit shall be deposited in an account within 30 days after the landlord receives it. (iv) The aggregate amount of the accounts shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security deposits for which the landlord is liable. (2) (i) In lieu of the accounts described in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the landlord may hold the security deposits in insured certificates of deposit at branches of federally insured financial institutions, as defined in § 1-101 of the Financial Institutions Article, located in the State or in securities issued by the federal government or the State of Maryland. (ii) In the aggregate certificates of deposit or securities shall be sufficient in amount to equal all security deposits for which the landlord is liable. As such, one or more accounts at your preference; it's up to the bank how to treat the account, so it may be a personal account or it may be a 'commercial' account depending on how they treat it (but it must be separate from your personal funds). A CD is perhaps the easiest way to go, as it's not a separate account exactly but it's easily separable from your own funds (and has better interest). You should also note (further down on that page) that you must pay 3% interest, once per six months; so try to get an account that pays as close as possible to that. You likely won't get 3% right now even in a CD, so consider this as an expense (and you'll probably find many people won't take security deposits in many situations as a result)." }, { "docid": "256981", "title": "", "text": "Alas, institutions do not always act rationally, and being an outlier by never having debt may be bad enough. Therein is your problem. The question, then, is do you want to do business with institutions that are not acting rationally? While I cannot specifically speak to Canadian business practices, I have to imagine that in terms of credit history as a prerequisite to a lease, it can't be too different than America. It is possible to live without a credit score. This is typically done by those with enough resources that do not need to borrow money. To make transactions that commonly use credit scores, such as a lease, they will provide personal financial statements (balance sheets, personal income statements, bank statements, pay stubs, tax returns, etc...) to show that they are credit-worthy. References from prior landlords may also be beneficial. Again, the caveat is to elect to only conduct business with those individuals and institutions that are intelligent and rational enough to be able to analyze your financial position (and ability to pay) without a credit score. Therefore, you'll probably have better luck working with individual landlords, as opposed to corporate-owned rental complexes." }, { "docid": "380352", "title": "", "text": "It is very difficult in New York City to evict a tenant. The tenant-landlord laws require that the tenant be taken to housing court. The time between filing a case for eviction and having the case heard is often five to six months. During this time, the tenant is allowed to live in the rental property. Note that this situation is independent of any rent stabilization or rent control aspects of the lease. If either of those issues are involved, there may be additional complications. I know that this is true based on first-hand experience. I was the leaseholder in my apartment, and rented out the extra room to a woman who worked with me. Even though we did not have a formal lease agreement, I was still considered her landlord. I consulted with a real-estate attorney in Manhattan, who told me that the situation was no different whether I was a property owner and rented to tenants, or whether it was a sublet/ roommate situation such as what I was doing. Regardless, the entire process of filing and having a hearing in Housing Court was necessary for eviction. In Florida, as else where, laws vary by county or even at a more local level. I know that the landlord files a notice and arranges for the Marshal's office to remove the tenant. Procedures and law in Miami-Dade County need to be checked on the official county website." }, { "docid": "132418", "title": "", "text": "Not only is this article just referencing another longer article, but that article does nothing to explain WHY there is this difference. It's frustrating because I'd like to know why. They say it's because of a different configuration of culture, the law, and unions. Uh, okay. That explains nothing." }, { "docid": "469190", "title": "", "text": "Now that we have made sure that the North Koreans are safe from any external threat and can go about their business peacefully, we don't need to waste any more energy on them. Lets redirect all our energy toward making sure the Middle east is fully nuclear, that will be good payment for the shemeckles violating sweet white and pure Ivanka night after night while daddy lay hot in sweaty in bed, his frustration small and hard in his hand plotting his revenge." }, { "docid": "466642", "title": "", "text": "Don’t you hate this shit? Whenever there’s a business-related or pharmaceutical company article posted on reddit, I try not to read the comments. It’s too frustrating to read all of the comments like the one you responded to. People with no business education or general knowledge of natural economic laws just spewing shit out of their mouths. People with no real understanding of what they’re actually talking about or the real implications of their proposals, but they have an opinion on something that’s been in the news somewhat recently so by god they’re gonna tell you how the fuck it should be!" }, { "docid": "373620", "title": "", "text": "I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg. I wish you the best of luck finding something, but I wasn't able to. S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site, but I wasn't able to make use of it. Edit: Also, Bloomberg allows shared terminals. Depending on how much you think as a firm, these questions might come up, it might be worth the 20k / year" }, { "docid": "264473", "title": "", "text": "Now days, startup business owners are so desperate for tapping into the billions of pounds hovering around various establishments that they will definitely go to greater lengths for getting or presenting their business plan to the top investor. This kind of continuous bombardment might frustrate several investors to certain extent that they will never want to listen about those specific organizations again. Venture capitals might also invest in various startup businesses beyond pitches of their own research thematic into industries or sectors where they consider disorderly organizations can materialize too. Know More" }, { "docid": "278387", "title": "", "text": "No no, I didn't forget. 3 times 12 is 36 minus 20 is $16 more. Thank you, I just needed someone to acknowledge that's they were incorrect. How's that get top comment though?! So frustrating. Edit: okay, not top comment anymore but still up there." }, { "docid": "263734", "title": "", "text": "A large part of the cost seems to be that he created the physical space from scratch: > Because Tortosa chose a brand-new building that had never been occupied, every single thing had to be built in. The upside is that he was able to create his dream space from scratch. The downside: That it cost him much more time and money. He spent approximately $500,000 doing that, and he received $100,000 from the landlord for doing it. So he's out $400k. The landlord will get a furnished space if he folds." }, { "docid": "162202", "title": "", "text": "Your parents would file their taxes as they normally do. It would be as if your parents were landlords renting a room to your girlfriend. She would not be claimed on their taxes. If your girlfriend pays rent to your parents (through her parents or otherwise) it would be claimed as rental income. The household size wouldn't change because even though your girlfriend is living with your parents they are not financially responsible for her. Example: A landlord would not claim renters as dependents or in household size on their taxes." }, { "docid": "432642", "title": "", "text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"" }, { "docid": "84441", "title": "", "text": "\"Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, \"\"resetting\"\" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a \"\"loyalty\"\" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of \"\"churn\"\" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out.\"" }, { "docid": "549281", "title": "", "text": "Whenever I've tried to actually buy something at an Apple Store I've found it a frustrating experience. With no line-ups or registers the process of actually buying something becomes a mess of finding an employee not helping someone else and hoping no-one else is quicker than you. I've tried using the ipads to request help but it seems they prioritize the people grabbing at them rather than the queue. Because of this I only go to apple stores to browse." }, { "docid": "399915", "title": "", "text": "One of the more frustrating things about plumbers is that they never seem to post rates up on their website and instead make you call them to get a quote. I HATE that. If I found a plumber website that gave me a ballpark figure of what I can expect, I would go with this person." }, { "docid": "23774", "title": "", "text": "With student loans at 2%, I wouldn't pay a dime over minimum on that, and I certainly wouldn't sell an investment property to pay them off, you can get CD's that beat 2% interest. With the rentals, you could sell the one that isn't performing as well and pay no capital gains tax if you lived in it 2 of the last 5 years (counting 5 years back from sale date). That'd be a nice chunk of money for your down-payment. The risk of using proceeds to buy a different rental property is that you may find you don't like being a distance landlord, and then you'd lose money selling or be stuck doing something you don't enjoy for a while until you can sell without a loss. Like you mentioned, the risk of selling either/both rental properties is that if the Arizona housing/rental markets do well you'd have given up your position and missed out. Ultimately, I think it's about your desired timeline, if you are content to wait a while to buy in San Diego, you could have a handsome down payment, will know whether or not you like being a distance landlord, and can sell/keep the rentals accordingly. Alternatively, if you want to get a house in San Diego sooner, then selling one or both rentals gets you there faster. If I was in your position, I'd probably sell the rental that I lived in and put that toward a down-payment on a primary residence, keeping the other rental for now and trying my hand at being a distance landlord." }, { "docid": "40796", "title": "", "text": "Question: I live in half of a duplex together with other college students. I put my rent (roughly $750 in cash) in the landlord's mailbox while he was out of town for three weeks. I told him ahead that I would do this, but he claims I never did, and he would have asked me not to. Anyway, now he claims the money was not there when he returned and I still owe $750. Answer: Well, that's tough. It could be that the money was stolen from the mailbox. It could be that the landlord pocketed the money and is trying to scam you. Your problem is that you have no receipt, and no evidence at all that you paid the money. There's little you can do other than paying up (again) and learning from this expensive lesson." }, { "docid": "556041", "title": "", "text": "Then we are on the same page. However realistically we cannot change some of the stupid tax laws fast enough. The fact is, how I see it, is we must do something two years ago to fix this. This means cuts. I can be as idealistic as I want, but that will not fix anything. (yes I'm fucking frustrated)" } ]

[ { "docid": "590489", "title": "", "text": "If you're sinking 1k/year into it, and the value is rising by $100k in 15 years, or $6k/year, you have a fine investment. Ignore the wife, she just wants something even better." } ]

[ { "docid": "556041", "title": "", "text": "Then we are on the same page. However realistically we cannot change some of the stupid tax laws fast enough. The fact is, how I see it, is we must do something two years ago to fix this. This means cuts. I can be as idealistic as I want, but that will not fix anything. (yes I'm fucking frustrated)" }, { "docid": "221838", "title": "", "text": "There are probably specific laws that control landlord/tenant rent disputes. But your friend's argument assumes that there aren't. Let's assume that there aren't. So there are two possibilities. Either the contract directly addresses this issue or it doesn't. If the contract directly and specifically addresses this issue, then that controls. Your friend is not claiming that it is specifically addressed. So the general principle is this -- when something occurs within a contract that wasn't explicitly discussed by the parties, courts will try to figure out what the parties likely would have agreed to had they discussed the specific issue (without changing the agreed terms of the contract). This should produce the result that is fair to both parties. Your friend is arguing then that had he and the landlord discussed the issue, the landlord would have agreed that in the event he is no longer able to accept credit cards easily, your friend could live there rent free. That doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you? Much more likely they would have agreed that he might have some leeway to work out a new payment scheme and maybe some late rent should be forgiven if he made an attempt to pay on time but couldn't make arrangements. But I don't see more than that being reasonable." }, { "docid": "215066", "title": "", "text": "\"The truth is anyone can sue anyone for anything. So yes you could be sued, but the more important part to measure is the probability of success. While this is probably more of a legal stack exchange question, in order for a successful suit there has to be proven at least some negligence on your part in the situation you cite. The very fact that the landlord is not willing to turn on the heat is probably enough to absolve you from any liability. Once you go down to a local store and purchase a UL certified heater then a suit would have a very low probability of success. Perhaps a case could be made if you made your own heater and it burned down the house. But that would require finding a jury that is sympathetic to landlords that will not provide heat for their tenants (highly unlikely). Could the landlord sue the heater company? Yes and would likely receive an out of court settlement. Even in the case that liability can be proven on your part, it is very unlikely you would be targeted. These type of suits target \"\"deep pockets\"\" or those with wealth. Unless something is specifically known about you having a high level of net worth a civil suit will not be brought against a \"\"room renter\"\" because of the lack of funds. People in your demographic tend not to have a lot of money. (No offense intended, I was there myself once.) In the case that you do have a high net worth, then get renters insurance and possibly an umbrella policy. It is a small price to pay to protect a significant amount of assets. If I was in your shoes here is what I would do:\"" }, { "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": "29761", "title": "", "text": "\"There has been almost no inflation during 2014-2015. do you mean rental price inflation or overall inflation? Housing price and by extension rental price inflation is usually much higher than the \"\"basket of goods\"\" CPI or RPI numbers. The low levels of these two indicators are mostly caused by technology, oil and food price deflation (at least in the US, UK, and Europe) outweighing other inflation. My slightly biased (I've just moved to a new rental property) and entirely London-centric empirical evidence suggests that 5% is quite a low figure for house price inflation and therefore also rental inflation. Your landlord will also try to get as much for the property as he can so look around for similar properties and work out what a market rate might be (within tolerances of course) and negotiate based on that. For the new asked price I could get a similar apartment in similar condos with gym and pool (this one doesn't have anything) or in a way better area (closer to supermarkets, restaurants, etc). suggests that you have already started on this and that the landlord is trying to artificially inflate rents. If you can afford the extra 5% and these similar but better appointed places are at that price why not move? It sounds like the reason that you are looking to stay on in this apartment is either familiarity or loyalty to the landlord so it may be time to benefit from a move.\"" }, { "docid": "472682", "title": "", "text": "I wouldn't start a bidding war if I were you. Sometimes you may get potentially bad tenants who cannot find a property anywhere else offering more money just to get in a place. If you know nothing else about these people how can you guarantee they will keep paying the rent once they get in. The things you should be doing is checking the prospective tenant's employment and income status, making sure they are able to easily pay the rent. You should check their credit report to see if they have a history of bad debts. And you should be checking with their previous landlords or real estate agents to see if they caused any damages to their previous properties. You should create a form that prospective tenants can fill out providing you with all the essential information you are after. Get them so sign a statement that gives you authority to ask information about them with other people (their previous landlords/ real estate agents, and their employers). Have a system set out on how you will assess all applicants and for the information the applicants need to provide you with. Treat it as a business." }, { "docid": "43556", "title": "", "text": "we have little money in cash for a down-payment This is a red flag to me. If you have little money in cash for a down-payment, how are you supposed to be a landlord too? You could try is to do a lease to own from your Dad. Get a renter into the other home for at least a year or more and then close on the house once your financial situation improves. You still have the same problem of being a landlord. Another option is to receive a gift letter from your Dad since he is gifting the money on the home. It might extend your closing a little bit so you can get an appraisal done and loan application. This to me is the most sane option." }, { "docid": "279115", "title": "", "text": "Cable companies that sell internet access realize that high speed internet enables high speed TV distribution that bypasses cable. Cable companies (which operate as de facto monopolies) don't want competition for the highly lucrative and powerful TV distribution business and therefore use whatever dirty tricks they can come up with to frustrate both internet at higher speeds and internet provided by any other entities. They know it's ultimately a losing battle but they'll remain obstinate for as long as they can." }, { "docid": "108273", "title": "", "text": "You must be rich. My condo was $98K. I paid about $2200 in mortgage interest last year. I opted to take the standard deduction instead. I make $80K a year and I cant even benefit from this deduction. It is really frustrating. I'm 30 with no kids and unmarried because I can't afford anything. Maybe when I'm 40 I can think about starting a family. If I'm lucky." }, { "docid": "399915", "title": "", "text": "One of the more frustrating things about plumbers is that they never seem to post rates up on their website and instead make you call them to get a quote. I HATE that. If I found a plumber website that gave me a ballpark figure of what I can expect, I would go with this person." }, { "docid": "121382", "title": "", "text": "I think people are missing the most obvious thing. The yearly rate increases are just part of the landlord schtick and it is good business for them. My grandmother owned several large apartment complexes. She would raise rates for any resident that had been there between 1-5 years by 5-7% a year. Even when she had vacancies and property values didn't go up. For the following reasons: So yes it is not only normal but just part of the business. If there are better apartments for less money I suggest you move there. Soon those other apartments will even out and if they are better they will be much more. So if you see a gap take advantage of it. If you would rather stay, then simply say you will not pay the increase. There is no use arguing about why. The landlord will either be OK with it or say no. Probably the biggest factors include whether you will tell other tenants (or their perception if you would) and how good of a tenant/risk they feel you are." }, { "docid": "158354", "title": "", "text": "I had to do the reverse. I've had a few bad experiences at home depot, so I decided to drive out further to the Lowe's where I get stellar customer service. As an IT worker though, this news really frustrates me. I guess I can't win either way." }, { "docid": "33003", "title": "", "text": "$900 seems like a fair cost of minor repair. As a landlord, I repaint and repatch the walls if there are any holes. Labor is also expensive now a days (especially here in the West Coast). HOWEVER, this is why there is a security deposit. To make sure things like this is covered after move out. NOW, you could ask the landlord for an itemized invoice of the cost of repairs. Which then you could rationalize the costs of repairs. I usually take the security deposit, then deduct any costs that were need during repair. And give the remaining difference back to the tenant." }, { "docid": "40796", "title": "", "text": "Question: I live in half of a duplex together with other college students. I put my rent (roughly $750 in cash) in the landlord's mailbox while he was out of town for three weeks. I told him ahead that I would do this, but he claims I never did, and he would have asked me not to. Anyway, now he claims the money was not there when he returned and I still owe $750. Answer: Well, that's tough. It could be that the money was stolen from the mailbox. It could be that the landlord pocketed the money and is trying to scam you. Your problem is that you have no receipt, and no evidence at all that you paid the money. There's little you can do other than paying up (again) and learning from this expensive lesson." }, { "docid": "373098", "title": "", "text": "\"It frustrates me that basically all \"\"media\"\" shops could be that way. Want a CD or DVD? Here's a kiosk; select what you want, insert a $10 note, and it burns while you wait. Need your textbooks? Pick 'em off a touch screen, come back in 20 minutes and collect them at a counter. It's all technically doable, but the legal machinations to do it on a useful scale are a nightmare. If only we could have some single rights clearinghouse that you could say \"\"I want to license *everything* for reproduction\"\" to.\"" }, { "docid": "71424", "title": "", "text": "Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers. Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?). This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance. My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently. There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord. Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release." }, { "docid": "505473", "title": "", "text": "\"No, the best you can do is (probably) determine the bank, from the sort code. using an online checker such as this one from the UK payments industry trade association. Revealing the name of an account holder is something the bank would typically require a warrant for, I'd expect, or whatever is covered in the account T&Cs under \"\"we provide all lawfully required assistance to the authorities\"\" Switching to what I suspect is your underlying problem - if this is a dispute that's arisen at the end of your tenancy, relating to the return of the deposit, then there are plenty of people to help you, for free. Use those rather than attempting your own detective work. Start with the UK government How to Rent guide, which includes links on to Shelter's pages about deposits. The CAB has lots of good info here too. Note that if your landlord didn't put your deposit in a deposit protection scheme, then as a professional landlord they could be penalised four times (I think) the deposit amount by a court, so stick to your guns on this.\"" }, { "docid": "23774", "title": "", "text": "With student loans at 2%, I wouldn't pay a dime over minimum on that, and I certainly wouldn't sell an investment property to pay them off, you can get CD's that beat 2% interest. With the rentals, you could sell the one that isn't performing as well and pay no capital gains tax if you lived in it 2 of the last 5 years (counting 5 years back from sale date). That'd be a nice chunk of money for your down-payment. The risk of using proceeds to buy a different rental property is that you may find you don't like being a distance landlord, and then you'd lose money selling or be stuck doing something you don't enjoy for a while until you can sell without a loss. Like you mentioned, the risk of selling either/both rental properties is that if the Arizona housing/rental markets do well you'd have given up your position and missed out. Ultimately, I think it's about your desired timeline, if you are content to wait a while to buy in San Diego, you could have a handsome down payment, will know whether or not you like being a distance landlord, and can sell/keep the rentals accordingly. Alternatively, if you want to get a house in San Diego sooner, then selling one or both rentals gets you there faster. If I was in your position, I'd probably sell the rental that I lived in and put that toward a down-payment on a primary residence, keeping the other rental for now and trying my hand at being a distance landlord." }, { "docid": "505900", "title": "", "text": "While I do legitimately appreciate your sentiment, I think that in consideration of the larger context of evidently widespread corruption, it is fair to be frustrated at certain kinds of madness. There is sometimes a reason for it, and most executives are in fact highly intelligent people. But we can't help but wonder how much ill could be avoided if it weren't for some greedy or careless individuals, as the case may be." } ]

[ { "docid": "343489", "title": "", "text": "\"The prices quoted are for currency pairs traded on the foreign exchange market. For currencies traded on these exchanges, the exchange rates of a given currency pair are determined by the market, so supply and demand, investor confidence, etc. all play a role. EBS and Reuters are the two primary trading platforms in the foreign exchange market, and much of the data on exchange rates comes from them. Websites will usually get their data either from these sources directly or from a data provider that in turn gets it from EBS, Reuters, or another data source like Bloomberg or Haver Analytics. These data sources aren't free, however. In the US, many contracts, transactions, etc. that involve exchange rates use the exchange rate data published by the Federal Reserve. You might see this in contracts that specify to use \"\"the exchange rate published by the Federal Reserve at 12 pm (noon) on date --some date--\"\". You can also look at the Federal Reserve Economic Data, which maintains data series of historical daily, weekly, and monthly exchange rates for major currency pairs. These data are free, although they aren't realtime. Data for each business day is mostly updated the next business day.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "345725", "title": "", "text": "\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"" }, { "docid": "179527", "title": "", "text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle." }, { "docid": "342411", "title": "", "text": "If you buy foreign currency as an investment, then the gains are ordinary income. The gains are realized when you close the position, and whether you buy something else go back to the original form of investment is of no consequence. In case #1 you have $125 income. In case #2 you have $125 income. In case #3 you have $166 loss. You report all these items on your Schedule D. Make sure to calculate the tax correctly, since the tax is not capital gains tax but rather ordinary income at marginal rates. Changes in foreign exchange between a transaction and the conversion of the proceeds to USD are generally not considered as income (i.e.: You sold a property in Mexico, but since the money took a couple of days to clear, the exchange rate changed and you got $2K more/less than you would based on the exchange rate on the day of the transaction - this is not a taxable income/loss). This is covered by the IRC Sec. 988. There are additional rules for contracts on foreign currency, TTM rules, etc. Better talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for anything other than trivial." }, { "docid": "355344", "title": "", "text": "I did some empirical research, comparing the exchange rates for wire transfers vs. the exchange rates for ATM withdrawals. With my bank, wire transfers typically take a 4% float off the exchange rate. ATM withdrawals seem to take just over 2%. And ATM withdrawals don't have a wire transfer fee, as long as I'm withdrawing from a branch of the same bank (overseas). The only problem with ATM withdrawals is the daily limit. As far as I can see, Tor's answer above has it completely backwards, at least with my bank, ATM withdrawals are a much better value. Do the research yourself...call the bank you're going to transfer from and find out what their current exchange rate is. Compare it to the current spot rate (e.g. XE.com) to determine how much of a cut the bank is taking. Then, if you can, withdraw some cash from the foreign location with your ATM card and see how much of the original currency is deducted from your account. In this way you can empirically discover for yourself the better rate." }, { "docid": "311349", "title": "", "text": "I can't speak for India, but for US travelers abroad, using an ATM card that reimburses transaction fees is usually the most convenient and cheapest way to obtain foreign cash. There are several banks and brokerages that offer these types of ATM cards in the US. The exchange rate is competitive and because the fees are reimbursed it's cheaper and easy than going to a bank or kiosk to exchange currencies. I don't know if you can get accounts/cards like this in India that reimburse ATM fees. For purchases, using a credit card is fine, too. Some cards charge a foreign transaction fee of ~1%, some don't. The credit card I use most of the time does charge a 1% transaction fee, but I get 2% back in rewards so I still don't mind using it when traveling." }, { "docid": "357023", "title": "", "text": "Everbank just charges a 1% currency conversion fee for foreign ATM transactions. Unfortunately they don't seem to document this on their web site, but a call to customer services should confirm (A family member confirmed with them in the past and I also have personal experience while traveling). It appears About.com also reviewed a few last spring. While many places do only take cash, for larger transactions (such as lodging) I'd recommend considering carrying one of the credit cards that don't pass through the network charge for a net 0% (such as Capital One mentioned in another answer)." }, { "docid": "29790", "title": "", "text": "\"You could convert your Australia cash to US dollars in cash now through a Foreign Currency provider like Travelex or UAE Exchange. To convert to USD cash right now, here's the rate you're looking at with both providers: The downside with either converting to cash now, or getting a \"\"cash passport\"\" like my other answer is you're not earning any interest on your cash. Alternate Option Anther idea is to just leave your cash in an Australian bank earning interest, and get credit card that has no Annual Fee and Free Foreign Currency Conversions. That way, use that credit card to make purchases while in the USA, and the currency conversion will happen at the time of the transaction using the credit card issuer's Bid/Offer spread. This is what I do. The credit card I use in the Bank West Platinum Zero Mastercard. Just make sure you pay the full amount off the card when the bill comes (not the minimum) to avoid paying any interest on the card's balance. The current conversion they give for a USD transaction is:\"" }, { "docid": "507605", "title": "", "text": "Jk Web Solution Plus is a fastest growing compony .We at Jk Web , offers web development , web design services , language , language translation, content writing ,search engine optimization (SEO) , interpretation , traduzione ,and all Services,web application Services and Software Development . provide a varied array of services which ranges from Linguistic solutions to IT solutions. We realize the importance of communication in every business process along with the cross-cultural synergies that play a significant role. Hence, our linguistic solutions include document translations and interpretation services in foreign languages as well as Regional languages. Information Technology has proved itself as an essential component behind big success stories in today's world. To help achieve such business goals,we strive for excellence through IT solutions. Apart from these two principle activities, we also venture in Consultancy and Recruitment services .Jk Web is bleaming to offers you to reflect your ideas in your web site and meets your accusative meant by capturing biz world." }, { "docid": "193565", "title": "", "text": "The big issue I can see is foreign exchange risk - if you've got the money in the US and you need it in Australia, you're vulnerable to fluctuations in the exchange rate between the two currencies. I would think that if you're expecting to go back to the US, you might want to leave some money in the US (to guard against the AU$ falling against the US$); if you're not planning to go back you're probably better off moving the money with you unless you expect the USD to appreciate considerably against the AUD anytime soon. The picture changes slightly if you still have expenses in the US, like paying for a mortgage, or repairs to a property there or something similar, as you're probably better off leaving part of the money in the US to get rid of both the exchange rate losses and currency risk." }, { "docid": "382505", "title": "", "text": "You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean." }, { "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...)\"" }, { "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": "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": "493569", "title": "", "text": "Update, 2013: this product is no longer available. As of December 1, 2010, Travelex announced a product, the Travelex Cash Passport, which is chip-and-pin protected. You can buy it in the US and then load it up with either Euros or British Pounds. There are a few things to know about this: Right now, it is not available online at the Travelex website. You must purchase it in person at participating Travelex retail locations. I bought mine right downstairs from the Stack Overflow world headquarters! The fees that Travelex charges for foreign currency transactions will take your breath away. I purchased a £300 card for $547.15, which comes out to a 15% service charge. Travelex will give you better rates if you purchase larger amounts. There is a further 3% fee if you use a credit card (I used a debit card to avoid this). Think long and hard about whether to load it with Pounds or Euros. They charged me 5.5% above the interbank exchange rate to spend my Pound card in Euros. You get two cards, which is very convenient. You can refill the card on the web. Due to the high fees, the Chip and PIN Cash Passport is not a good idea for everyday transactions, for getting cash from an ATM, and certainly not for paying for big-ticket items like hotels. You're going to want to reserve it for purchasing things from those automated kiosks in Europe (especially gas stations, ticket machines in train stations, and toll booths) that will not work with a standard magnetic stripe card. The card worked perfectly buying tickets on the tube in London. I haven't had a chance to check it out in other countries." }, { "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": "72375", "title": "", "text": "\"I think your best bet here would be HSBC. They will provide the required currencies, credit/debit cards, and very easy to use online banking transfers. This includes an online \"\"Global Account View\"\" which features all of your accounts on a single screen and allows you to \"\"drag and drop\"\" money between accounts. Regarding fees, I suspect you will need to be a \"\"Premier Account\"\" holder in order to avoid any fees imposed on transactions such as money transfers and exchanging money between currencies. In my experience HSBC offers extremely good exchange rates when exchanging \"\"large\"\" amounts of money ( greater than $10,000 / GBP 5,000 ). Exchanging small amounts will carry a larger spread but still much better than most banks offer. In my experience, exchanging GBP 5000 will have a spread of about 0.50-to-0.75 percent, while exchanging more than GBP10,000 will have a spread of as little as 0.10-to-0.20 percent. In order to qualify for a \"\"Premier Account\"\", if my memory of HSBC UK serves me correctly, you will need to have at least GBP 50,000 net across all of your HSBC managed accounts, including stockbroking and other investment accounts. In order to open a banking Swiss account, you will need to travel to Switzerland and apply in person. You cannot open a foreign bank account remotely. With a foreign investment account, I believe you can open accounts remotely. For example, I opened an account with Fidelity Switzerland using my Fidelity UK account directly from the UK, however obviously Fidelity does not provide banking services so this is not of interest to you. The simplest thing to do is to visit your local HSBC branch and discuss it with them in person. Other UK banks, such as Barclays, will also provide such services, but in my experience they are not as competitive on fees.\"" }, { "docid": "450694", "title": "", "text": "\"Q: How do currency markets work? A: The FX (foreign exchange) market works very much like the stock market where potential buying parties bid $Y of country 1's currency to buy $1 in country 2's currency. Potential selling parties sell (ask) $1 of country 2's currency for $Y of country 1's currency. Like the stock market, there are also a swaps, futures and options in this market. Q: What factors are behind why currencies go up or down? A: Just like any open market, currencies go up and down based on supply and demand. Many factors affect the supply and demand of a particular currency. Some were listed well by the other posts. Q: What roles do governments, central banks, institutions, and traders have in the process? A: It's common practice that gov'ts intervene to \"\"control\"\" the value of currencies. For example, although it's not general public knowledge, the Canadian gov't is actively purchasing up US dollars in the FX market in an effort to stop the US/Canadian exchange rate from dropping further. This has dramatic economic consequences for the Canadian ecomony if the Canadian dollar were to strengthen too far and too quickly.\"" }, { "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": "592251", "title": "", "text": "Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah." } ]

[ { "docid": "456470", "title": "", "text": "What is a dividend? Essentially, for every share of a dividend stock that you own, you are paid a portion of the company’s earnings. You get paid simply for owning the stock! For example, let’s say Company X pays an annualized dividend of 20 cents per share. Most companies pay dividends quarterly (four times a year), meaning at the end of every business quarter, the company will send a check for 1/4 of 20 cents (or 5 cents) for each share you own. This may not seem like a lot, but when you have built your portfolio up to thousands of shares, and use those dividends to buy more stock in the company, you can make a lot of money over the years. The key is to reinvest those dividends! Source: http://www.dividend.com/dividend-investing-101/what-are-dividend-stocks/ What is an ex dividend date Once the company sets the record date, the ex-dividend date is set based on stock exchange rules. The ex-dividend date is usually set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. Source: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm That said, as long as you purchased the stock before 6/4/17 you are entitled to the next dividend. If not, you'll get the following one after that." } ]

[ { "docid": "442127", "title": "", "text": "I have found The DRiP Investing Resource Center to be a useful resource for more information about DRIP investing. Moneypaper.com offers a list of companies offering both direct purchase options and dividend reinvestment plans. For those offering dividend reinvestment plans, but not direct purchase, you have the option of using a service to purchase your first shares to enroll in the DRIP program. The tax paperwork for DRIPs is a pain due to the partial shares purchased over time when you have to figure out your own cost basis upon sale of shares , but a spreadsheet and a FIFO (first in first out) approach makes it not too much of a headache. -MU" }, { "docid": "453582", "title": "", "text": "\"Investopedia explains how a stock split impacts the stock's options: Each option contract is typically in control of 100 shares of an underlying security at a predetermined strike price. To find the new coverage of the option, take the split ratio and multiply by the old coverage (normally 100 shares). To find the new strike price, take the old strike price and divide by the split ratio. Say, for example, you own a call for 100 shares of XYZ with a strike price of $75. Now, if XYZ had a stock split of 2 for 1, then the option would now be for 200 shares with a strike price of $37.50. If, on the other hand, the stock split was 3 for 2, then the option would be for 150 shares with a strike price of $50. So, yes, a 2 for 1 stock split would halve the option strike prices. Also, in case the Investopedia article isn't clear, after a split the options still control 100 shares per contract. Regarding how a dividend affects option prices, I found an article with a good explanation: As mentioned above, dividends payment could reduce the price of a stock due to reduction of the company's assets. It becomes intuitive to know that if a stock is expected to go down, its call options will drop in extrinsic value while its put options will gain in extrinsic value before it happens. Indeed, dividends deflate the extrinsic value of call options and inflate the extrinsic value of put options weeks or even months before an expected dividend payment. Extrinsic value of Call Options are deflated due to dividends not only because of an expected reduction in the price of the stock but also due to the fact that call options buyers do not get paid the dividends that the stock buyers do. This makes call options of dividend paying stocks less attractive to own than the stocks itself, thereby depressing its extrinsic value. How much the value of call options drop due to dividends is really a function of its moneyness. In the money call options with high delta would be expected to drop the most on ex-date while out of the money call options with lower delta would be least affected. If a stock is expected to drop by a certain amount, that drop would already have been priced into the extrinsic value of its put options way beforehand. This is what happens to put options of dividend paying stocks. This effect is again a function of options moneyness but this time, in the money put options raise in extrinsic value more than out of the money put options. This is because in the money put options with delta of close to -1 would gain almost dollar or dollar on the drop of a stock. As such, in the money put options would rise in extrinsic value almost as much as the dividend rate itself while out of the money put options may not experience any changes since the dividend effect may not be strong enough to bring the stock down to take those out of the money put options in the money. So, no, a dividend of $1 will not necessarily decrease an option's price by $1 on the ex-dividend date. It depends on whether it's a call or put option, and whether the option is \"\"in the money\"\" or \"\"out of the money\"\" and by how much.\"" }, { "docid": "525527", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"" }, { "docid": "1198", "title": "", "text": "Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments." }, { "docid": "285895", "title": "", "text": "A combination of market research and tax law would likely be the combination used to set the salary. An elaboration of each: Taxes - In Canada and the US there can be differences in how payments are treated if they are salary,e.g. payroll taxes such as CPP, Social Security and others may apply in this case as well as personal income tax rates, or dividends, which may have different treatments in some jurisdictions I believe. If salary above $250,000 is taxed at 40% and dividends are taxed at 15%, which rate would you rather pay? (This is hypothetical as no jurisdiction has been noted here yet.) Most provinces and states in North America will tax the first few dollars at rather low rates and so it isn't bad to take a nominal rate of $1 or so in salary as usually the higher rates exist for higher salaries. Executive Compensation has come under scrutiny in recent years though it is usually a mix of salary, bonuses, and stock either restricted or options. Market Research - Some companies may research what other small public companies would pay executives as the salary may have to be approved by a board of directors in some cases. At least this would be how I remember things being decided in small companies I worked for in Washington State and the province of Alberta. In a lot of company cases, excess earnings are stored and if there is enough of a pile then a special dividend may be given out though some corporate structures like REITs force dividends to maintain their tax status. Note the payment in dividend here requires that the President be able to dictate what happens with the cash in the bank of a company which isn't going to be the case for the regular employee. Also, the dividends here would go to all the shareholders and thus if there are people besides the President owning shares they would also get their portion based on what they own." }, { "docid": "179649", "title": "", "text": "If you want to monitor how well you did in choosing your investments you will want to use stock prices that account for the dividends and splits and other changes (not just the closing price). The adjusted close will include these changes where the straight close will not include them. Using the adjusted close you will get your true percentage change. For example I have a stock called PETS that paid an $0.18 dividend in July 2015. The adjusted closes before that day in July are all $0.18 lower per share. Say the closing price had been unchanged at $20.00. The close prices would say I made no profit, but the adjusted closing price would say I made $0.18 per share on this investment because the adjusted close would read $19.82 in June 2015 but would read $20.00 in August 2015 (just like the closing price). The adjusted close allows me to know my true profit per share." }, { "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": "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": "501931", "title": "", "text": "I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares." }, { "docid": "421371", "title": "", "text": "\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"" }, { "docid": "587689", "title": "", "text": "Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend." }, { "docid": "311214", "title": "", "text": "To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares." }, { "docid": "150514", "title": "", "text": "\"You are missing the fact that the company can buy back its own shares. For simplicity, imagine the case that you own ALL of the shares of XYZ corporation. XYZ is very profitable, and it makes $1M per year. There are two ways to return $1M to you, the shareholder: 1) The company could buy back some fraction of your shares for $1M, or 2) The company could pay you a $1M dividend. After (1) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (2) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (1) the total number of shares would be fewer, but saying you owned less of XYZ would be like complaining that you are shorter when your height is measured in inches than in centimeters. So indeed, a buyback is an alternative to a dividend. Furthermore, buybacks have a number of tax advantages over dividends to taxable shareholders (see my answer in Can I get a dividend \"\"free lunch\"\" by buying a stock just before the ex-dividend date and selling it immediately after?). That said, it is important to recognize the shareholders who are less savvy about knowing when to accept the buyback (by correctly valuing the company) can get burned at the profit of the savvy shareholders. A strategy to avoid being burned if you aren't price savvy is simply to sell a fraction in order to get your pro rata share of the buyback, in many respects simulating a dividend but still reaping some (but not all) of the tax advantages of a buyback.\"" }, { "docid": "145096", "title": "", "text": "From the hover text of the said screen; Latest dividend/dividend yield Latest dividend is dividend per share paid to shareholders in the most recent quarter. Dividend yield is the value of the latest dividend, multiplied by the number of times dividends are typically paid per year, divided by the stock price. So for Ambev looks like the dividend is inconsistantly paid and not paid every quarter." }, { "docid": "61193", "title": "", "text": "Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable." }, { "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": "206442", "title": "", "text": "\"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books. (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend. In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect. The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends. (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling. In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan. For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year. In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results. If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend. There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company. It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000. The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]\"" }, { "docid": "496820", "title": "", "text": "When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases." }, { "docid": "307505", "title": "", "text": "The moment the dividend is announced, especially from a company that doesn't normally pay dividends, the dividend is factored into everybody's analysis. In the absence of any other news the price of apple would be expected to drop once the dividend in locked in. Why would I buy shares from you at full price one day after the dividend is paid, if I will have to wait for the next dividend? Also keep in mind the dividend was announced on July 24th, and is given to shareholders of record on August 13th. You are way behind the curve." } ]

[ { "docid": "1198", "title": "", "text": "Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments." } ]

[ { "docid": "196939", "title": "", "text": "In an ideal world Say on 24th July the share price of Apple was $600. Everyone knows that they will get the $ 2.65 on 16th August. There is not other news that is affecting the price. You want to go in and buy the shares on 16th Morning at $600 and then sell it on 17th August at $600. Now in this process you have earned sure shot $2.65/- Or in an ideal world when the announcement is made on 24th July, why would I sell it at $600, when I know if I wait for few more days I will get $2.65/- so i will be more inclined to sell it at $602.65 /- ... so on 16th Aug after the dividend is paid out, the share price will be back to $600/- In a real world, dividend or no dividend the share price would be moving up or down ... Notice that the dividend amount is less than 1% of the stock price ... stock prices change more than this percentage ... so if you are trying to do what is described in paragraph one, then you may be disappointed as the share price may go down as well by more than $2.65 you have made" }, { "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": "179649", "title": "", "text": "If you want to monitor how well you did in choosing your investments you will want to use stock prices that account for the dividends and splits and other changes (not just the closing price). The adjusted close will include these changes where the straight close will not include them. Using the adjusted close you will get your true percentage change. For example I have a stock called PETS that paid an $0.18 dividend in July 2015. The adjusted closes before that day in July are all $0.18 lower per share. Say the closing price had been unchanged at $20.00. The close prices would say I made no profit, but the adjusted closing price would say I made $0.18 per share on this investment because the adjusted close would read $19.82 in June 2015 but would read $20.00 in August 2015 (just like the closing price). The adjusted close allows me to know my true profit per share." }, { "docid": "61193", "title": "", "text": "Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable." }, { "docid": "107218", "title": "", "text": "It is a bit more complicated than whether it pays more or less dividends. You should make your decision based on how well the company is performing both fundamentally and technically. Concentrating mainly on the fundamental performance for this question, most good and healthy companies make enough profits to both pay out dividends and invest back into the company to keep growing the company and profits. In fact a good indication of a well performing company is when their dividend per share and earnings per share are both growing each year and the dividends per share are less than the earnings per share (that way you know dividends are being paid out from new profits and not existing cash holdings). This information can give you an indication of both a stable and growing company. I would rather invest in a company that pays little or no dividends but is increasing profits and growing year after year than a company that pays higher dividends but its profits are decreasing year after year. How long will the company continue to pay dividends for, if it starts making less and less profits to pay them with? You should never invest in a company solely because they pay dividends, if you do you will end up losing money. It is no use making $1 in dividends if you lose $2+ because the share price drops. 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 for a stable and growing company." }, { "docid": "13240", "title": "", "text": "Because they receive compensation (generally interest + dividends) for loaning out the shares. I own an asset X. Somebody else wants to borrow asset X for some time period. I agree to loan them asset X in return for some form of compensation (generally a rate of interest plus, in this specific case, any dividend payments). The reasons why I own asset X, and why they want to borrow asset X are irrelevant to the transaction. The only relevant points are the amount of compensation and the risk that they might default on the loan. This applies equally well to shares as to money or any other kind of loan-able asset." }, { "docid": "17661", "title": "", "text": "The trader has purchased 1095 options, each of which is a contract which entitles him to sell 100 shares of Cisco stock for $16 a share. He paid $71 for each contract (71 cents a share x 100) which is roughly $78k total. He will get $109,500 for each dollar below $16 Cisco's stock is when he exercises it (he can buy the stock for the going rate and then sell it for $16 immediately), or he can sell the option itself to someone else for a similar gain (usually a little more, especially if the option has a long time until it expires). If the option expires when the stock is over $16/share, he gets nothing; i.e. the original $78k is lost. For reference, Cisco's stock was trading at $17.14/share as of market close on March 18, 2010. The share price had recently been boosted by the recent news that they would be paying a quarterly dividend. It has been heading mostly downward since February 9, after they announced that they're not expecting profits to be as good as the analysts thought they would be: they claim that people aren't buying too much networking equipment just now, and they're also facing mounting competition from the likes of HP and Juniper for switches, and Aruba / HP / Motorola for wireless devices. They may lose market share or need to cut prices, hurting profits. Either way, there's certainly a real possibility of their stock going below $16 in the next few months, so people are willing to pay for those options. (Disclosure: I work for Aruba, who competes with Cisco. I also own shares of Aruba, possess assorted stock options and similar equity grants, and participate in the employee stock purchase program. I also own shares in Cisco indirectly through various mutual funds and ETFs.)" }, { "docid": "162916", "title": "", "text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too." }, { "docid": "217472", "title": "", "text": "As you own a company, you need to know what your role is. You can never just move money into or out of the company, you have to identify the role in which you are doing it, and do it properly. There is Company, and there is You, in three different roles. You are the sole shareholder and director of Company. You are the sole employee of Company. You are also just a private person. You need to keep these three roles separate. As the sole shareholder, you own the company. However, you don't own any assets of the company. The company is yours, but the money in its bank account isn't. As a private person, you give a loan to your company. You write on a sheet of paper that You personally, give a loan to the company, how much a loan is, what interest is paid, and when the loan will be paid back (that could be 'whenever You demands the money paid back'). Then you move the money from your private bank account to the company bank account, and the company has the money it needs to fund its operation. Assume it wasn't you who loaned the money, but I gave the loan to the company. You can imagine that I would have this loan written down and signed before I hand over the cash. And you must have exactly the same papers that I would have. How do you get money from the company? The company can pay back your loan. That should be written down again, in the same way as the loan itself was written down. Other than that, there are three ways how you can get money out of the company: The company can pay You, in your role as its employee, a salary, which it can deduct from its profits. The company can pay money into a pension of the company director (that's You in your role as company director) up to £40,000 or so a year; that money is deducted from its profits again. The company pays 20% tax on its remaining profits. Then the company can pay You, in your role as company director, a dividend, usually twice a year. Each of these payments has to be written down and given to HMRC properly. Best by far to use an accountant to do all the paper work for you and advice you what to do. You can lose a lot of money by just not getting the paperwork right, by filing late etc., which the accountant will get right. The accountant will also tell you what are the optimal amounts for salary and dividend (best is a small salary, about £10,000 a year, dividend of about £30,000 a year, pension as much as the company can afford, which is then all tax free to you). You can't pay more dividend then the company can afford (paying a dividend and then not being able to pay your suppliers is criminal), and if you want higher dividends, then you will have to pay taxes on them." }, { "docid": "73286", "title": "", "text": "Share prices fall when dividends are paid out because the paid dividend (cash out) actually reduces the value of the company. Usually the share price falls by the amount of the dividend payment." }, { "docid": "315345", "title": "", "text": "The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV." }, { "docid": "188839", "title": "", "text": "\"The stock should fall by approximately the amount of the dividend as that is what is paid out. If you have a stock trading at $10/share and it pays a $1/share dividend, the price should drop to $9 as what was trading before the dividend was paid would be both the dividend and the stock itself. If the person bought just for the dividend then it would likely be neutral as there isn't anything extra to be gained. Consider if this wasn't the case. Wouldn't one be able to buy a stock a few days before the dividend and sell just after for a nice profit? That doesn't make sense and is the reason for the drop in price. Similarly, if a stock has a split or spin-off there may be changes in the price to reflect that adjustment in value of the company. If I give you 2 nickels for a dime, the overall value is still 10 cents though this would be 2 coins instead of one. Some charts may show a \"\"Dividend adjusted\"\" price to factor out these transactions so be careful of what prices are quoted.\"" }, { "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." }, { "docid": "275943", "title": "", "text": "\"There are some useful answers here, but I don't think any of them are quite sufficient. Yes, there are some risks involved in CFD trading, but I will try and give you information so you can make your own decision. Firstly, Cyprus is part of the EU, which gives it a level of credibility. I'm not saying it's the safest or most well regulated market in the world, but that in itself would not particularly scare me away. The far more important issue here is the risk of using CFDs and of eToro themselves. A Contract for Difference is really just a specialization of an Equity Swap. It is in no way like owning a real stock. When you purchase shares of a company you own a real Asset and are usually entitled to dividends and voting rights. With a CFD, what you own is one side of a Swap contract. You have a legal agreement between yourself and eToro to \"\"swap\"\" the return earned on the underlying stock for whatever fees eToro decide to charge. As already mentioned, CFDs are not available to US citizens. Equity swaps have many benefits in financial markets. They can allow access to restricted markets by entering into swaps with banks that have the necessary licenses to trade in places like China. Many \"\"synthetic\"\" ETFs use them in Europe as a way to minimize tracking error as the return is guaranteed by the swap counterparty (for a charge). They also come with one signficant risk: counterparty credit risk. When trading with eToro, for as long as your position is open, you are at risk of eToro going bankrupt. If eToro failed, you do not actually own any stocks, you only own swap contracts which are going to be worthless if eToro ceased to exist. CFDs also have an ongoing cost to maintain the open position. This makes them less suitable for buy and hold strategies as those ongoing costs will eat into your returns. It's also not clear whether you would receive any dividends paid by the stock, which make up a significant proportion of returns for buy and hold investors. eToro's website is fairly non-committal: eToro intends to offer a financial compensation representing the dividends which will be allocated on stocks, to the extent such dividends shall be available to eToro. All of these points expose what CFDs are really for - speculating on the stock market, or as I like to call it: gambling. If you want to invest in stocks for the long term, CFDs are a bad idea - they have high ongoing costs and the counterparty risk becomes significant. Wait until you have enough money and then buy the real thing. Alternatively, consider mutual funds which will allow you to purchase partial shares and will ensure your investment is better diversified across a large number of stocks. If however, you want to gamble and only keep your position open for a short time, these issues may not be of concern to you. There's nothing wrong with gambling, it can be fun, many people gamble in casinos or on football matches - but bear in mind that's what CFDs are for. CFDs were in fact originally created for the UK market as a way to avoid paying capital gains tax when making short term speculative trades. However, if you are going to gamble, make sure you're not putting any more than 1% of your net worth at risk (0.1% may be a better target). There are a few other ways to take a position on stocks using less money than the share price: Fortunately, eToro do not allow leveraged purchase of stocks so you're reasonably safe on this point. They claim this is because of their 'responsible trading policy', although I find that somewhat questionable coming from a broker that offers 400:1 leverage on FX pairs. One final word on eToro's \"\"social trading\"\" feature. A few years ago I was in a casino playing Blackjack. I know nothing about Blackjack, but through sheer luck of the draw I managed to treble my money in a very small amount of time. Seeing this, a person behind me started \"\"following\"\" me by putting his chips down on my seat. Needless to say, I lost everything, but amazingly the person behind me got quite annoyed and started criticizing my strategy. The idea of following other people's trades just because they've been lucky in the past sounds entirely foolish to me. Remember the warning on every mutual fund: Past performance does not guarantee future returns\"" }, { "docid": "60495", "title": "", "text": "Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment." }, { "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": "311214", "title": "", "text": "To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares." }, { "docid": "405791", "title": "", "text": "\"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \"\"guaranteed\"\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \"\"preferred\"\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \"\"guaranteed\"\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \"\"convenants\"\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\"" }, { "docid": "227518", "title": "", "text": "I am using the same logic as the two answers above. I got almost the same result ($46.60 instead of $46.59 per share) using the sold fractional share basis. However, the JCI Qualified Dividend (on the 1099-DIV, not the 1099-B) divided by the number of shares spun off yields a basis per share of only $40.97 That compares to $45.349 in answer two above. It seems that we should get the approximately same basis per share using the same arithmetic, and I do not know why we don't. For my tax files, I plan to use the Adient basis equal to the dividend from the 2016 1099-DIV of JCI (the PLC after the merger). My reasoning is that I cannot use an amount for the Adient basis that is greater than the dividend I paid taxes on. [In case this part of the question comes up again, you can get historical quotes at various websites such as https://finance.yahoo.com/quote, which does show $45.51 as the Adient closing price on 10/31/16.]" } ]

[ { "docid": "564271", "title": "", "text": "gnasher729, was able to see my problem here. It was a silly oversight. It's not 50p a share, its 0.5p a share. @Bezzzo: The dividend is not 50p per share, it is 0.50p per share - half a penny per share. Thanks!" } ]

[ { "docid": "60495", "title": "", "text": "Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment." }, { "docid": "13240", "title": "", "text": "Because they receive compensation (generally interest + dividends) for loaning out the shares. I own an asset X. Somebody else wants to borrow asset X for some time period. I agree to loan them asset X in return for some form of compensation (generally a rate of interest plus, in this specific case, any dividend payments). The reasons why I own asset X, and why they want to borrow asset X are irrelevant to the transaction. The only relevant points are the amount of compensation and the risk that they might default on the loan. This applies equally well to shares as to money or any other kind of loan-able asset." }, { "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.\"" }, { "docid": "215486", "title": "", "text": "Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend." }, { "docid": "179649", "title": "", "text": "If you want to monitor how well you did in choosing your investments you will want to use stock prices that account for the dividends and splits and other changes (not just the closing price). The adjusted close will include these changes where the straight close will not include them. Using the adjusted close you will get your true percentage change. For example I have a stock called PETS that paid an $0.18 dividend in July 2015. The adjusted closes before that day in July are all $0.18 lower per share. Say the closing price had been unchanged at $20.00. The close prices would say I made no profit, but the adjusted closing price would say I made $0.18 per share on this investment because the adjusted close would read $19.82 in June 2015 but would read $20.00 in August 2015 (just like the closing price). The adjusted close allows me to know my true profit per share." }, { "docid": "1198", "title": "", "text": "Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments." }, { "docid": "61193", "title": "", "text": "Do not confuse the DIV (%) value and the dividend yield. As you can see from this page, the DIV (%) is, as you say, 165%. However, the dividend yield is 3.73% at the time of writing. As the Investopedia page referenced above says: The payout ratio is calculated as follows: Annual Dividends per Share / Earnings per Share. which means that the dividends being paid out are more than the earnings of the company: In extreme cases, dividend payout ratios exceed 100%, meaning more dividends were paid out than there were profits that year. Significantly high ratios are unsustainable." }, { "docid": "311214", "title": "", "text": "To follow up on Quid's comment, the share classes themselves will define what level of dividends are expected. Note that the terms 'common shares' and 'preferred shares' are generally understood terms, but are not as precise as you might believe. There are dozens/hundreds of different characteristics that could be written into share classes in the company's articles of incorporation [as long as those characteristics are legal in corporate law in the company's jurisdiction]. So in answering your question there's a bit of an assumption that things are working 'as usual'. Note that private companies often have odd quirks to their share classes, things like weird small classes of shares that have most of the voting rights, or shares with 'shotgun buyback clauses'. As long as they are legal clauses, they can be used to help control how the business is run between various shareholders with competing interests. Things like parents anticipating future family infighting and trying to prevent familial struggle. You are unlikely to see such weird quirks in public companies, where the company will have additional regulatory requirements and where the public won't want any shock at unexpected share clauses. In your case, you suggested having a non-cumulative preferred share [with no voting rights, but that doesn't impact dividend payment]: There are two salient points left related to payout that the articles of incorporation will need to define for the share classes: (1) What is the redemption value for the shares? [This is usually equal to the cost of subscribing for the shares in the first place; it represents how much the business will need to pay the shareholder in the event of redemption / recall] (2) What is the stated dividend amount? This is usually defined at a rate that's at or a little above a reasonable interest rate at the time the shares are created, but defined as $ / share. For example, the shares could have $1 / share dividend payment, where the shares originally cost $50 each to subscribe [this would reflect a rate of payment of about 2%]. Typically by corporate law, dividends must be paid to preferred shares, to the extent required based on the characteristics of the share class [some preferred shares may not have any required dividends at all], before any dividends can be paid to common shares. So if $10k in dividends is to be paid, and total preferred shares require $15k of non-cumulative dividends each year, then $0 will be paid to the common shares. The following year, $15k of dividends will once again need to be paid to the preferred shares, before any can be paid to the common shares." }, { "docid": "477603", "title": "", "text": "How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel." }, { "docid": "177959", "title": "", "text": "\"It's actually the other way around. Distributions in an LLC are usually based on each member's equity share, although the operating agreement can specify how often such distributions are made. Shareholders in a corporation can receive dividends, but those are determined by the corporation's board and can vary depending on the class of stock each shareholder owns. Preferred-class shareholders, who may hold a smaller overall fraction of the company's outstanding shares than the common stock shareholders, may receive disproportionately larger dividends per share than common stock shareholders, which is one of the (many) reasons that preferred stock is a better choice when it is available. Take, for instance, what Berkshire Class \"\"A\"\" shareholders receive in dividends per year compared to Class \"\"B\"\" shareholders. Here's a good link from LegalZoom that can explain what you're asking about: Explanation of LLC distributions I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "501931", "title": "", "text": "I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares." }, { "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": "188839", "title": "", "text": "\"The stock should fall by approximately the amount of the dividend as that is what is paid out. If you have a stock trading at $10/share and it pays a $1/share dividend, the price should drop to $9 as what was trading before the dividend was paid would be both the dividend and the stock itself. If the person bought just for the dividend then it would likely be neutral as there isn't anything extra to be gained. Consider if this wasn't the case. Wouldn't one be able to buy a stock a few days before the dividend and sell just after for a nice profit? That doesn't make sense and is the reason for the drop in price. Similarly, if a stock has a split or spin-off there may be changes in the price to reflect that adjustment in value of the company. If I give you 2 nickels for a dime, the overall value is still 10 cents though this would be 2 coins instead of one. Some charts may show a \"\"Dividend adjusted\"\" price to factor out these transactions so be careful of what prices are quoted.\"" }, { "docid": "235391", "title": "", "text": "\"In a sentence, stocks are a share of equity in the company, while bonds are a share of credit to the company. When you buy one share of stock, you own a (typically infinitesimal) percentage of the company. You are usually entitled to a share of the profits of that company, and/or to participate in the business decisions of that company. A particular type of stock may or may not pay dividends, which is the primary way companies share profits with their stockholders (the other way is simply by increasing the company's share value by being successful and thus desirable to investors). A stock also may or may not allow you to vote on company business; you may hear about companies buying 20% or 30% \"\"interests\"\" in other companies; they own that percentage of the company, and their vote on company matters is given that same weight in the total voting pool. Typically, a company offers two levels of stocks: \"\"Common\"\" stock usually has voting rights attached, and may pay dividends. \"\"Preferred\"\" stock usually gives up the voting rights, but pays a higher dividend percentage (maybe double or triple that of common stock) and may have payment guarantees (if a promised dividend is missed in one quarter and then paid in the next, the preferred stockholders get their dividend for the past and present quarters before the common shareholders see a penny). Governments and non-profits are typically prohibited from selling their equity; if a government sold stock it would basically be taxing everyone and then paying back stockholders, while non-profit organizations have no profits to pay out as dividends. Bonds, on the other hand, are a slice of the company's debt load. Think of bonds as kind of like a corporate credit card. When a company needs a lot of cash, it will sell bonds. A single bond may be worth $10, $100, or $1000, depending on the investor market being targeted. This is the amount the company will pay the bondholder at the end of the term of the bond. These bonds are bought by investors on the open market for less than their face value, and the company uses the cash it raises for whatever purpose it wants, before paying off the bondholders at term's end (usually by paying each bond at face value using money from a new package of bonds, in effect \"\"rolling over\"\" the debt to the next cycle, similar to you carrying a balance on your credit card). The difference between the cost and payoff is the \"\"interest charge\"\" on this slice of the loan, and can be expressed as a percentage of the purchase price over the remaining term of the bond, as its \"\"yield\"\" or \"\"APY\"\". For example, a bond worth $100 that was sold on Jan 1 for $85 and is due to be paid on Dec 31 of the same year has an APY of (15/85*100) = 17.65%. Typically, yields for highly-rated companies are more like 4-6%; a bond that would yield 17% is very risky and indicates a very low bond rating, so-called \"\"junk status\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "421371", "title": "", "text": "\"It's been said before, but to repeat succinctly, a company's current share price is no more or less than what \"\"the market\"\" thinks that share is worth, as measured by the price at which the shares are being bought and sold. As such, a lot of things can affect that price, some of them material, others ethereal. A common reason to own stock is to share the profits of the company; by owning 1 share out of 1 million shares outstanding, you are entitled to 1/1000000 of that company's quarterly profits (if any). These are paid out as dividends. Two key measurements are based on these dividend payments; the first is \"\"earnings per share\"\", which is the company's stated quarterly profits, divided by outstanding shares, with the second being the \"\"price-earnings ratio\"\" which is the current price of the stock divided by its EPS. Your expected \"\"yield\"\" on this stock is more or less the inverse of this number; if a company has a P/E ratio of 20, then all things being equal, if you invest $100 in this stock you can expect a return of $5, or 5% (1/20). As such, changes in the expected earnings per share can cause the share price to rise or fall to maintain a P/E ratio that the pool of buyers are willing to tolerate. News that a company might miss its profit expectations, due to a decrease in consumer demand, an increase in raw materials costs, labor, financing, or any of a multitude of things that industry analysts watch, can cause the stock price to drop sharply as people look for better investments with higher yields. However, a large P/E ratio is not necessarily a bad thing, especially for a large stable company. That stability means the company is better able to weather economic problems, and thus it is a lower risk. Now, not all companies issue dividends. Apple is probably the most well-known example. The company simply retains all its earnings to reinvest in itself. This is typically the strategy of a smaller start-up; whether they're making good money or not, they typically want to keep what they make so they can keep growing, and the shareholders are usually fine with that. Why? Well, because there's more than one way to value a company, and more than one way to look at a stock. Owning one share of a stock can be seen quite literally as owning a share of that company. The share can then be valued as a fraction of the company's total assets. Sounds simple, but it isn't, because not every asset the company owns has a line in the financial statements. A company's brand name, for instance, has no tangible value, and yet it is probably the most valuable single thing Apple owns. Similarly, intellectual property doesn't have a \"\"book value\"\" on a company's balance sheet, but again, these are huge contributors to the success and profitability of a company like Apple; the company is viewed as a center of innovation, and if it were not doing any innovating, it would very quickly be seen as a middleman for some other company's ideas and products. A company can't sustain that position for long even if it's raking in the money in the meantime. Overall, the value of a company is generally a combination of these two things; by owning a portion of stock, you own a piece of the company's assets, and also claim a piece of their profits. A large company with a lot of material assets and very little debt can be highly valued based solely on the sum of its parts, even if profits are lagging. Conversely, a company more or less operating out of a storage unit can have a patent on the cure for cancer, and be shoveling money into their coffers with bulldozers.\"" }, { "docid": "275084", "title": "", "text": "How to 'use' your shares: If you own common shares in a company (as opposed to a fund) then you have the right (but not the obligation) to excersize one vote per share on questions put before the shareholders. Usually, this occurs once a year. Usually these questions regard approval of auditors. Sometimes they involve officers such as directors on the board. You will be mailed a form to fill out and mail back in. Preferred shares usually are not voting shares,but common shares always are. By the way, I do not recommend owning shares in companies. I recommend funds instead,either ETFs or mutual funds. Owning shares in companies puts you at risk of a failure of that company. Owning funds spreads that risk around,thus reducing your exposure. There are, really, two purposes for owning shares 1) Owning shares gives you the right to declared dividends 2) Owning shares allows you to sell those shares at some time in the future. (Hopefully at a profit) One obscure thing you can do with owned shares is to 'write' (sell) covered put options. But options are not something that you need to concern yourself with at this point. You may find it useful to sign up for a free daily email from www.investorwords.com." }, { "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": "184077", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"" }, { "docid": "288145", "title": "", "text": "*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations." } ]

[ { "docid": "294327", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure what raising your credit limit would do to your score in the short term. I don't think it's a clear win, though. Your percent utilization will go down (more available credit for the same amount of debt) but your available credit will also go up, which may be a negative, since potentially you can default on more debt. If you're interested in monitoring your score, Credit Karma will let you do that for free." } ]

[ { "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": "135807", "title": "", "text": "Yes, as long as you are responsible with the payments and treat it as a cash substitute, and not a loan. I waited until I was 21 to apply for my first credit card, which gave me a later start to my credit history. That led to an embarrassing credit rejection when I went to buy some furniture after I graduated college. You'd think $700 split into three interest-free payments wouldn't be too big of a risk, but I was rejected since my credit history was only 4 months long, even though I had zero late payments. So I ended up paying cash for the furniture instead, but it was still a horrible feeling when the sales rep came back to me and quietly told me my credit application had been denied." }, { "docid": "549151", "title": "", "text": "Purchase loans tend to be more challenging to get the best possible rate, because you have to balance closing the loan and getting the contract. So there isn't as much time to shop around as when you do a refinance. I disagree with the sentiment to go with your local bank. Nothing wrong with asking at your local bank and using their numbers as a baseline, but chances are they won't be competitive. There are many reputable online mortgage originators that will show accurate fees and rates upfront assuming you provide accurate information. In the past there were a lot of issue with Good Faith Estimates being pretty much worthless. There were a fair number of horror stories about people showing up to closing and finding out fee or rates had increased dramatically. There was a law passed after the housing debacle that severely limits the shenanigans that lenders can do at closing and so there is less risk when going with a lesser known lender. In fact I would say the only real risk with a lender now days is choosing one that happens to be overloaded and or just has poor customer service in general. Personally I have found the most competitive rates from Zillow's mortgage service and the now defunct Google mortgage. The lenders tend to be smaller, but highly efficient. They are very much dependent on their online reputations. I have heard good things about a number of larger online lenders, but I don't have personal experience so I will leave them off. I personally wouldn't worry much about whether the loan is sold or not. Outside of refinancing I don't think I have ever talked to the bank servicing my mortgage about my mortgage. There just isn't much need to talk to them." }, { "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": "526106", "title": "", "text": "\"It is called \"\"Credit card installments\"\" or \"\"Equal pay installments\"\", and I am not aware of them being widely used in the USA. While in other countries they are supported by banks directly (right?), in US you may find this option only in some big stores like home improvement stores, car dealerships, cell phone operators (so that you can buy a new phone) etc. Some stores allow 0% financing for, say, 12 months which is not exactly the same as installments but close, if you have discipline to pay $250 each month and not wait for 12 months to end. Splitting the big payment in parts means that the seller gets money in parts as well, and it adds risks of customer default, introduces debt collection possibility etc. That's why it's usually up to the merchants to support it - bank does not care in this case, from the bank point of view the store just charges the same card another $250 every month. In other countries banks support this option directly, I think, taking over or dividing the risk with the merchants. This has not happened in US. There is a company SplitIt which automates installments if stores want to support it but again, it means stores need to agree to it. Here is a simple article describing how credit cards work: https://www.usbank.com/credit-cards/how-credit-cards-work.html In general, if you move to US, you are unlikely to be able to get a regular credit card because you will not have any \"\"credit history\"\" which is a system designed to track each customer ability to get & pay off debt. The easiest way to build the history - request \"\"secured credit card\"\", which means you have to give the bank money up front and then they will give you a credit card with a credit limit equal to that amount. It's like a \"\"practice credit card\"\". You use it for 6-12 months and the bank will report your usage to credit bureaus, establishing your \"\"credit score\"\". After that you should be able to get your money back and convert your secured card into a regular credit card. Credit history can be also built by paying rent and utilities but that requires companies who collect money to report the payments to credit bureaus and very few do that. As anything else in US, there are some businesses which help to solve this problem for extra money.\"" }, { "docid": "426954", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure that OP was asking if he/she personally should have more available credit, so I will answer the other interpretation: should that particular card have a higher limit? The answer is \"\"no.\"\" The range varies vastly by issuer. Starting limits vary widely from issuer to issuer even with identical credit histories. Some issuers never automatically increase the limit, some periodically conduct account reviews to determine if an increase is warranted. Some like to see higher spending habits each month. Personally, my cards range from $500 to $25000, and the high and low extremes are the same age. You can search for tips on how often to request increases for your particular card, or what kind of spending habits the issuer prefers. An important note: You do not need to carry a balance to make the issuer happy. You never need to pay a cent in credit card interest.\"" }, { "docid": "361442", "title": "", "text": "From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors" }, { "docid": "278626", "title": "", "text": "At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests." }, { "docid": "444369", "title": "", "text": "An issue with the initial plan was that the house was gifted to you. Therefore you owned it. Now two years later you wanted to get a mortgage. The IRS would look at it as a home equity debt not a home Acquisition debt, and the interest on the first $100,000 of home equity dept is deductible. This is from IRS pub 936 Mortgage treated as used to buy, build, or improve home. A mortgage secured by a qualified home may be treated as home acquisition debt, even if you do not actually use the proceeds to buy, build, or substantially improve the home. This applies in the following situations. You buy your home within 90 days before or after the date you take out the mortgage. The home acquisition debt is limited to the home's cost, plus the cost of any substantial improvements within the limit described below in (2) or (3). (See Example 1 later.) You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage before the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within 24 months before the date of the mortgage. You build or improve your home and take out the mortgage within 90 days after the work is completed. The home acquisition debt is limited to the amount of the expenses incurred within the period beginning 24 months before the work is completed and ending on the date of the mortgage. (See Example 2 later.) Example 1. You bought your main home on June 3 for $175,000. You paid for the home with cash you got from the sale of your old home. On July 15, you took out a mortgage of $150,000 secured by your main home. You used the $150,000 to invest in stocks. You can treat the mortgage as taken out to buy your home because you bought the home within 90 days before you took out the mortgage. The entire mortgage qualifies as home acquisition debt because it was not more than the home's cost. At two years you would be way outside the 90 day limit. The pub also gives example on how calculate the amount of interest you can deduct." }, { "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." }, { "docid": "519296", "title": "", "text": "It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%." }, { "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": "402705", "title": "", "text": "There were several areas where the mortgage and car loan have affected your credit. The mortgage had the following impacts, The car loan (purchased shortly after the house) had the following impacts, You did not mention your payment history, but since you had an 800 prior to the house purchase, we can assume that your payment history is current (nothing late). You did not mention your credit utilization, but you want to keep your utilization low (various experts suggest 10%, 20% and 30% as thresholds). The down payment on the house likely drained your available funds, and replacing the car may have also put stress on your funds. And when you buy a house, often there are additional expenses that further strain budgets. My guess is that your utilization percentage has increased. My suggestion would be to reduce your utilization ratio on your revolving accounts. And since you have plenty of credit lines, you might want to payoff the car. Your Chase card has a good age, which helps with age of credit, and though you will find experts that say you should only have 2-4 revolving accounts (credit cards), other experience shows that having accounts with age on them is a good thing. And having a larger number of accounts does not cause problems (unless you have higher utilization or you miss payments). You did not mention whether the Chase card has any fees or expenses, as that would be a reason to either negotiate with Chase to reduce or eliminate the fees, or to cancel the card. Have you checked your credit report for errors? You can get a free report from each of the three bureaus once per year." }, { "docid": "587032", "title": "", "text": "\"The simple answer is that, even though mortgages can go for 10, 15, 20 and 30 year terms in the U.S., they're typically backed by bonds sold to investors that mature in 10 years, which is the standard term for most bonds. These bonds, in the open market, are compared by investors with the 10-year Treasury note, which is the gold standard for low-risk investment; the U.S. Government has a solid history of always paying its bills (though this reputation is being tested in recent years with fights over the debt ceiling and government budgets). The savvy investor, therefore, knows that he or she can make at least the yield from the 10-year T-note in that time frame, with virtually zero risk. Anything else on the market is seen as being a higher risk, and so investors demand higher yields (by making lower bids, forcing the issuer to issue more bonds to get the money it needs up front). Mortgage-backed securities are usually in the next tier above T-debt in terms of risk; when backed by prime-rate mortgages they're typically AAA-rated, making them available to \"\"institutional investors\"\" like banks, mutual funds, etc. This forms a balancing act; mortgage-backed securities issuers typically can't get the yield of a T-note, because no matter how low their risk, T-debt is lower (because one bank doesn't have the power to tax the entire U.S. population). But, they're almost as good because they're still very stable, low-risk debt. This bond price, and the resulting yield, is in turn the baseline for a long-term loan by the bank to an individual. The bank, watching the market and its other bond packages, knows what it can get for a package of bonds backed by your mortgage (and others with similar credit scores). It will therefore take this number, add a couple of percentage points to make some money for itself and its stockholders (how much the bank can add is tacitly controlled by other market forces; you're allowed to shop around for the lowest rate you can get, which limits any one bank's ability to jack up rates), and this is the rate you see advertised and - hopefully - what shows up on your paperwork after you apply.\"" }, { "docid": "520026", "title": "", "text": "You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy." }, { "docid": "565367", "title": "", "text": "\"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few: As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, \"\"The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.\"\" How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, \"\"If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes.\"\" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment. The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date. As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement. This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder). Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a \"\"hard pull\"\" of your credit report for that).\"" }, { "docid": "175305", "title": "", "text": "Mortgage rates are at record lows. The 30 yr fixed is now below 4%, if you are in the 25% bracket and itemize (state income tax, property tax, donations, easy to pass the minimum) it costs you 3% post tax. This is the rate of long term inflation, effectively making this money free. You are likely to be able to average a far greater return than this mortgage is costing you. These rates may last another year or two, but long term, they are an anomaly. ETFs such as DVY (the Dow high dividend stocks) are yielding over 3.75%, 3.2% after the 15% cap gain tax. i.e. you get a small positive return, and the potential for capital gains. If this ETF rises just 3%/yr it's all profit above your cost of money. That said, there are those who sleep better with a paid in full house, regardless of the rate. To that extreme, I've read those who make paying their mortgage a priority ahead of funding their matched 401(k). While I can guess what the market will return, but can't know what will actual happen, it's foolish to skip one's match. They reason that the market can crash, I reply the 401(k) has to have a short term fund, money market or T-bill type returns, but a 100% match is a no-brainer. Using an estimated 4% for the 30 and 3.5% for the 15, the payment on the 15 yr mortgage will be 50% higher, $1430 (15yr) for $200K vs $955 for the 30. How does this play in your budget? Do you have an adequate emergency fund? Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers. Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money." }, { "docid": "551175", "title": "", "text": "Is it possible to pay off my balance more than once in a payment period in order to increase the amount I can spend in a payment period? Yes you can pay off the balance more than once even if its not due. This will get applied to outstanding and you will be able to spend again. If so, is there a reason not to do this? There is no harm. However note that it generally takes 2-3 days for the credit to be applied to the card. Hence factor this in before you make new purchases. I just got a credit card to start rebuilding my credit. Spending close to you credit limit does not help much; compared to spending less than 10% of your credit limit. So the sooner you get your limit on card increased the better." }, { "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": "2064", "title": "", "text": "8 hard inquiries spread over two years is not a negative factor, with a score of 750. Real question #1: How much of your credit limits are you currently using? Less than 30% of your credit limits is good. Less than 15% is even better, 10% is great You don't need to wait X amount of days after applying for a mortgage or a card to increase your chances of getting approved for something else. You do need to be conscious of how many hard pulls you have done in a reporting period though, but again as I said, 8 spread over two years is not a whole lot. Real question #2: What negative things do you have in your credit history? Young age, income, delinquent payments, bankruptcies, low limits? Some of these negative factors are catch-22's (low limits, young age = low limits because of age and young credit history) but these contribute to how much institutions would be willing to lend you" } ]

[ { "docid": "99716", "title": "", "text": "The only ways to increase your after-tax income are to increase your tax-deferred savings (401k), increase your tax deductions, or increase your pre-tax income. Increasing tax-deferred savings is great for the long term, but will usually not result in a bigger paycheck (though net pay including the savings will go up). This is, however, probably your best bet for reducing current tax liability. Increasing deductions usually involves spending money--on charity, mortgage interest, other taxes, etc. So, while you may reduce your tax liability, you probably won't end up with more money in your pocket. Also, if you are single and aren't paying a mortgage, it probably won't be easy to exceed the Standard Deduction. Which pretty much leaves you with asking for a raise, getting a better paying job, or taking on a second job to increase your top-line income." }, { "docid": "519296", "title": "", "text": "It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%." }, { "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": "253705", "title": "", "text": "\"US based so I don't know how closely this translates to the UK, but generally speaking there are three things that contribute to a strong credit score. Length/volume of credit history. This is a combination of how many accounts appear in your history along with how long they have been open. Having a series of accounts that were maintained in good standing looks better than only having one. Maintaining an account in good standing for a prolonged period (3+ years) is better than a bunch of short term items. \"\"Ideally\"\" your credit history should contain a mix of term loans that were paid per contract and a few (1?) revolving account that shows ongoing use. The goal is to show that you can handle ongoing obligations responsibly, and manage multiple things at the same time. Utilization. Or how much you currently owe vs how much people have agreed to lend you. Being close to your limits raises questions about whether or not you can really handle the additional debt. Having large availability raises questions about whether you would be able to handle it if you suddenly maxed things out. Finding the correct middle point can be challenging, the numbers I have seen thrown around most by the \"\"experts\"\" is 20-30% utilization. Recent Activity. Or how much new debt have you taken on? If someone is opening lots of new accounts it raises red flags. Shopping around for a deal on a auto loan or mortgage before settling on one is fine. Opening 5 new credit lines in the past 6 months, probably going to knock you down a bit. One of the concerns here is have you had the accounts long enough to demonstrate that you will be able to handle them in the long term. One route that was suggested to me in my early years was to go take out a 6mo loan from a bank, and just place the money in a CD while I made the payments. Then repeat with a longer term. Worst case, you can cash out the CD to pay off the loan in an emergency, but otherwise it helps show the type of history they are looking for. All that said, I have to agree with Pete B's answer. Don't play the credit game if you don't really need to. Or play it just enough to stay in the game and plan your finances to avoid relying on it. (Advice I wish I had taken long ago.)\"" }, { "docid": "53602", "title": "", "text": "There are a few options that I know of, but pretty much every one of them will cost more than you want to pay in fees, probably. You should be able to write a check/cheque to yourself. You might check with your US bank branch to see how much of a limit they'd have. You can also use a Canadian ATM card at a US ATM. The final option would be to use a Canadian credit card for all of your purchases in the US, and then pay the bill from the Canadian bank account. I don't recommend the last option because if you're not careful to pay off the bill every month, you're running up debt. Also, it's hard to pay some kinds of expenses by credit card, so you'd want a way to have cash available. Another option would be to use a service like Paypal or Hyperwallet to send yourself the money. Again, you'd be paying fees, but these might be cheaper than what the bank would charge. There may be other options, but these are the ones I'm aware of. Whatever you choose, look carefully at what the fees would be, and how long you'd have to wait to get the money. If you can plan ahead a bit, and take larger chunks of money at a time, that should help keep the fees down a bit. I believe there's also a point where you start having to report these transfers to the US government. The number $10,000 stick in my head, but they may have changed that recently." }, { "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": "19233", "title": "", "text": "The card you have is one where you had to deposit an amount equivelent to your card limit -a secured limit credit card. Capital One is one if the primary cards of this type. The typical rules of credit card usage and building your credit, do not apply. So, yes, you want to use the card as much as possible and pay off your balance as often as is necessary to keep your limit freed up. You can actually pay the full balance plus 10%, and gain a little extra limit. Use your card as much as possible and call them and ask for a limit increase every three months. usually about 4 - 5 months in, they will increase your limit and do so without asking for a corresponding security deposit. This is really cool, because it means you are becoming credit-worthy. I know so much about this because I applied for this card for my son and am helping him in his attempt to repair his credit. His score increased by almost 200 points last year." }, { "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": "426215", "title": "", "text": "\"Understand your own risk tolerance and discipline. From Moneychimp we can see different market results - This is a 15 year span, containing what was arguably one of the most awful decades going. A full 10 year period with a negative return. Yet, the 15 year return was a 6.65% CAGR. You'd net 5.65% after long term cap gains. Your mortgage is likely costing ~4% or 3% after tax (This is not applicable to my Canadian friends, I understand you don't deduct interest). In my not so humble opinion, I'd pay off the highest rate debts first (unlike The David followers who are happy to pay off tens of thousands of dollars in 0% interest debt before the large 18% debt) and invest at the highest rate I'd get long term. The problem is knowing when to flip from one to the other. Here's food for thought - The David insists on his use of the 12% long term market return. The last 100 years have had an average 11.96% return, but you can't spend average, the CAGR, the real compound rate was 10.06%. Why would he recommend paying off a sub 3% loan while using 12% for his long term planning (All my David remarks are not applicable to Canadian members, you all probably know better than to listen to US entertainers)? I am retired, and put my money where my mouth is. The $200K I still owe on my mortgage is offset by over $400K in my 401(k). The money went in at 25%/28% pretax, has grown over these past 20 years, and comes out at 15% to pay my mortgage each month. No regrets. Anyone starting out now, and taking a 30 year mortgage, but putting the delta to a 15 year mortgage payment into their 401(k) is nearly certain to have far more in the retirement account 15 years hence than their remaining balance on the loan, even after taxes are considered. Even more if this money helps them to get the full matching, which too many miss. All that said, keep in mind, the market is likely to see a correction or two in the next 15 years, one of which may be painful. If that would keep you up at night, don't listen to me. If a fixed return of 4% seems more appealing than a 10% return with a 15% standard deviation, pay the mortgage first. Last - if you have a paid off house but no job, the town still wants its property tax, and the utilities still need to be paid. If you lose your job with $400K in your 401(k)/IRA but have a $200K mortgage, you have a lot of time to find a new job or sell the house with little pressure from the debt collectors. (To answer the question in advance - \"\"Joe, at what mortgage rate do you pay it off first?\"\" Good question. I'd deposit to my 401(k) to grab matching deposits first, and then if the mortgage was anywhere north of 6%, prioritize that. This would keep my chances at near 100% of coming out ahead.)\"" }, { "docid": "310120", "title": "", "text": "You probably won't get a mortgage. UDSA has a 41% ratio of monthly debt to monthly income limit, and a score of 660 or better. A 250,000 mortgage at current rates for 30 year mortgage is about $1560/mo. (included in this figure is the 1% mortgage insurance premium, the .4% annual fee, the current rate for a 660 credit rating, the 2% points fee added at the front of the mortgage, typical closing cost added to transaction, and the .5% fee for over-mortgage insurance for the first 3 years since your mortgage will be higher than the value of the house due to these additional fees) Credit card payments = $120 ($60 times 2) Car payments = $542 ($271 for your car, $271 for the car you will be getting) Student loan = $50/month Child Support = $500/month Total = $2772/month Your income per month is 82000/12 = $6833/month $2772/$6833 = 40.6%... This is awfully close to the limit, so they likely would also look at your ability to save. Not seeing savings in the above example, I assume it is low. USDA site One mortgage help site breaks down some of the requirements into layman's language. Not knowing your exact location (county/state) and how many children you have, it is hard to be sure whether you make too much to qualify. This link shows the income limits by number of people in the house and the county/state. There are few places in which you could be living that would qualify you to any of their programs unless you have a several children. As others have posted, I suggest you get your debt down." }, { "docid": "322825", "title": "", "text": "\"Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka \"\"people to lug your stuff\"\"). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)\"" }, { "docid": "516444", "title": "", "text": "\"I'd like to suggest a plan. First, I know you want to buy a house. I get that, and that is an awesome goal to work for. You need to really sit down and decide why you want a house. People often tell we that they want a house because they are throwing their money away renting. This is just not true. There is a cost of renting, that is true, but there is also a cost of owning. There are many things with a house that you will have to pay for that will add little or no equity/value. Now that equity is nice to have, but make no mistake under no circumstance does every dime you put into your house increase its value. This is a huge misconception. There is interest, fees, repairs, taxes, and a bunch of other stuff that you will spend money on that will not increase the value of your home. You will do no harm, waiting a bit, renting, and getting to a better place before you buy a house. With that out of the way, time for the plan. Note: I'm not saying wait to buy a house; I am saying think of these as steps in the large house buying plan. Get your current debt under control. Your credit score doesn't suck, but it's not good either. It's middle of the road. Your going to want that higher if you can, but more importantly than that, you want to get into a pattern of making debt then honoring it. The single best advise I can give you is what my wife and I did. Get a credit card (you have one; don't get more) and then get into a habit of not spending more on that credit card than you actually have in the bank. If you have $50 in the bank, only spend that on your credit card. Then pay it in full, 100%, every payday (twice a month). This will improve your score quite a bit, and will, in time, get you in the habit of buying only what you can afford. Unless there has been an emergency, you should not be spending more on credit than you actually have. Your car loan needs to get under control. I'm not going to tell you to pay it off completely, but see point 2. Your car debt should not be more than you have in the bank. This, again is a credit building step. If you have 7.5k in the bank and own 7.5k on your car, your ability to get a loan will improve greatly. Start envelope budgeting. There are many systems out there, but I like YNAB a lot. It can totally turn your situation around in just a few months. It will also allow you to see your \"\"house fund\"\" growing. Breaking Point So far this sounds like a long wait, but it's not. It also sounds like I am saying to wait to actually buy a house, and I'm not. I am not saying get your debt to 0, nor do I think you should wait that long. The idea is that you get your debt under control and build a nice solid set of habits to keep it under control. A look at your finances at this point Now, at this point you still have debt, but your credit cards are at 0 and have been, every payday for a few months. Your car loan still exists, but you have money in the bank to cover this debt, and you could pay it off. It would eat your nest egg, but you could. You also have 15k set aside, just for the house. As you take longer looking for that perfect house, that number keeps growing. Your bank account now has over $25,000 in it. That's a good feeling on its own, and if you stick with your plan, buy your house and put down $15k, you still have plenty of wiggle room between credit cards that are not maxed out, and a $7.5k \"\"padding\"\" in case the roof falls in. Again it sounds like I'm saying wait. But I'm not, I'm saying plan better. All of these goals are very doable inside one year, a rough year to be sure, but doable. If you want to do it comfortably, then take two years. In that time you're looking, searching and learning.\"" }, { "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": "264586", "title": "", "text": "\"I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity. A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash. Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by. In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage. At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender. Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score. The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages. In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a \"\"freebie\"\" in a way. You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford. Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit. Don't paint yourself into a corner. Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "426954", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not sure that OP was asking if he/she personally should have more available credit, so I will answer the other interpretation: should that particular card have a higher limit? The answer is \"\"no.\"\" The range varies vastly by issuer. Starting limits vary widely from issuer to issuer even with identical credit histories. Some issuers never automatically increase the limit, some periodically conduct account reviews to determine if an increase is warranted. Some like to see higher spending habits each month. Personally, my cards range from $500 to $25000, and the high and low extremes are the same age. You can search for tips on how often to request increases for your particular card, or what kind of spending habits the issuer prefers. An important note: You do not need to carry a balance to make the issuer happy. You never need to pay a cent in credit card interest.\"" }, { "docid": "175305", "title": "", "text": "Mortgage rates are at record lows. The 30 yr fixed is now below 4%, if you are in the 25% bracket and itemize (state income tax, property tax, donations, easy to pass the minimum) it costs you 3% post tax. This is the rate of long term inflation, effectively making this money free. You are likely to be able to average a far greater return than this mortgage is costing you. These rates may last another year or two, but long term, they are an anomaly. ETFs such as DVY (the Dow high dividend stocks) are yielding over 3.75%, 3.2% after the 15% cap gain tax. i.e. you get a small positive return, and the potential for capital gains. If this ETF rises just 3%/yr it's all profit above your cost of money. That said, there are those who sleep better with a paid in full house, regardless of the rate. To that extreme, I've read those who make paying their mortgage a priority ahead of funding their matched 401(k). While I can guess what the market will return, but can't know what will actual happen, it's foolish to skip one's match. They reason that the market can crash, I reply the 401(k) has to have a short term fund, money market or T-bill type returns, but a 100% match is a no-brainer. Using an estimated 4% for the 30 and 3.5% for the 15, the payment on the 15 yr mortgage will be 50% higher, $1430 (15yr) for $200K vs $955 for the 30. How does this play in your budget? Do you have an adequate emergency fund? Are you funding your retirement plan at a decent level? In the end, there is no right answer, just what's right for you. Understanding the rest of your financial picture will get you more detailed advice. Not knowing your situation limits the answers. Edit 6/30/2015 - When I wrote this answer, the DVY was trading at $48.24. $100,000 invested would have given off $3187/yr after a 15% dividend tax rate. At $75/share now, the $100,000 investment would be worth $155,472 and yielding $5597 for a net $4757 after tax. The choice to go DVY would have been profitable from the start, with room now for a 35% crash before losing any money." }, { "docid": "191250", "title": "", "text": "On the face, this appears a sound method to manage long run cumulative interest, but there are some caveats. Maxing out credit cards will destroy your credit rating. You will receive no more reasonable offers for credit, only shady ones. Though your credit rating will rise the moment you bring the balance back down to 10%, even with high income, it's easy to overshoot the 8 months, and then a high interest rate kicks in because of the low credit rating. Further, maxing out credit cards will encourage credit card lenders to begin cutting limits and at worse demand early payment. Now, after month 6 hits, your financial payment obligations skyrocket. A sudden jolt is never easy to manage. This will increase risk of missing a payment, a disaster for such hair line financing. In short, the probability of decimating your financial structure is high for very little benefit. If you are confident that you can pay off $4,000 in 8 months then simply apply those payments to the student loan directly, cutting out the middle man. Your creditors will be pleased to see your total liabilities fall at a high rate while your utilization remains small, encouraging them to offer you more credit and lower rates. The ideal credit card utilization rate is 10%, so it would be wise to use that portion to repay the student loans. Building up credit will allow you to use the credit as an auxiliary cushion when financial disaster strikes. Keeping an excellent credit rating will allow you to finance the largest home possible for your money. Every percentage point of mortgage interest can mean the difference between a million USD home and a $750,000 one." }, { "docid": "47441", "title": "", "text": "Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/" }, { "docid": "103830", "title": "", "text": "Nobody can predict the affects of Brexit but it is wise to consider them. We saw the pound weaken after the vote to leave and it is possible the pound will weaken further after Brexit and this devaluation could be quite dramatic. If that happens it is likely to increase inflation, UK inflation has gone from under 1% around the time of the referendum to 3% today and it could well go higher. https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate If inflation continues to increase, the Bank of England is likely to put up interest rates, as it has historically done this to hedge against inflation. We have been living in a world of artificially low interest rates since the global crash of 2008 as the BoE has tried to stimulate recovery with lower rates. The rates cannot continue at this level if inflation starts to rise. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2387744/Base-rate-vs-inflation-chart-How-tell-things-really-got-better.html That in turn will put up mortgage rates. So for example if you have a £100k mortgage at 3.92% (currently this is a reasonable rate to have) your repayments will be £523 a month. If your mortgage rate goes up to say 7% then your repayments are £707 a month, if it goes up to 10% then it's £909 a month and so on. There is a mortgage calculator you can use to try playing with different amounts here: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-rate-calculator My advice would therefore be try to get as small a mortgage as you can and make sure you can afford it quite comfortably, in case rates go up and you need to find a few hundred pounds a month extra. There are other risks from Brexit as well, house prices could fall as people decide not to buy properties due to excessive interest rates! Overall nobody knows what will happen but it is good to be planning ahead for all eventualities. ** I am not a financial advisor, this advice is given in good faith but with no financial qualification." } ]

[ { "docid": "319734", "title": "", "text": "Specific to the inquiries, from my Impact of Credit Inquiries article - 8 is at the high end pulling your score down until some time passes. As MB stated, long term expanding your credit will help, but short term, it's a bit of a hit." } ]

[ { "docid": "191250", "title": "", "text": "On the face, this appears a sound method to manage long run cumulative interest, but there are some caveats. Maxing out credit cards will destroy your credit rating. You will receive no more reasonable offers for credit, only shady ones. Though your credit rating will rise the moment you bring the balance back down to 10%, even with high income, it's easy to overshoot the 8 months, and then a high interest rate kicks in because of the low credit rating. Further, maxing out credit cards will encourage credit card lenders to begin cutting limits and at worse demand early payment. Now, after month 6 hits, your financial payment obligations skyrocket. A sudden jolt is never easy to manage. This will increase risk of missing a payment, a disaster for such hair line financing. In short, the probability of decimating your financial structure is high for very little benefit. If you are confident that you can pay off $4,000 in 8 months then simply apply those payments to the student loan directly, cutting out the middle man. Your creditors will be pleased to see your total liabilities fall at a high rate while your utilization remains small, encouraging them to offer you more credit and lower rates. The ideal credit card utilization rate is 10%, so it would be wise to use that portion to repay the student loans. Building up credit will allow you to use the credit as an auxiliary cushion when financial disaster strikes. Keeping an excellent credit rating will allow you to finance the largest home possible for your money. Every percentage point of mortgage interest can mean the difference between a million USD home and a $750,000 one." }, { "docid": "591734", "title": "", "text": "Nope. Not claiming any expertise just common sense. After 2008 when everything crashed I got interested in economic depressions and asset bubbles from a historical perspective. How long they lasted in the past and what I should expect. Figuring that past experience is a good indicator for the present and the future. Now I keep reading that the recovery is just around the corner! Just be patient, everything will be fine people. No worries. It's different this time. Oh wait, you took a $500k HELOC because your wages have stagnated for the last 20 years and now you can't afford to pay it. Multiply that story millions of times. I can't for the life of me understand how banks routinely approved mortgages to people 5 or 10 times their annual income. A neighbor of mine got two mortgages for $1.3 million in 2006 working part time at Home Depot." }, { "docid": "338606", "title": "", "text": "Before doing anything else: you want a lawyer involved right from the beginning, to make sure that something reasonable happens with the house if one of you dies or leaves. Seriously, you'll both be safer and happier if it's all explicit. How much you should put on the house is not the right question. Houses don't sell instantly, and while you can access some of their stored value by borrowing against them that too can take some time to arrange. You need to have enough operating capital for normal finances, plus an emergency reserve to cover unexpectedly being out of work or sudden medical expenses. There are suggestions for how much that should be in answers to other questions. After that, the question is whether you should really be buying a house at all. It isn't always a better option than renting and (again as discussed in answers to other questions) there are ongoing costs in time and upkeep and taxes and insurance. If you're just thinking about the financials, it may be better to continue to rent and to invest the savings in the market. The time to buy a house is when you have the money and a reliable income, plan not to move for at least five years, really want the advantages of more elbow room and the freedom to alter the place to suit your needs (which will absorb more money)... As far as how much to put down vs. finance: you really want a down payment of at least 20%. Anything less than that, and the bank will insist you pay for mortgage insurance, which is a significant expense. Whether you want to pay more than that out of your savings depends on how low an interest rate you can get (this is a good time in that regard) versus how much return you are getting on your investments, combined with how long you want the mortgage to run and how large a mortgage payment you're comfortable committing to. If you've got a good investment plan in progress and can get a mortgage which charges a lower interest rate than your investments can reasonably be expected to pay you, putting less down and taking a larger mortgage is one of the safer forms of leveraged investing... IF you're comfortable with that. If the larger mortgage hanging over you is going to make you uncomfortable, this might not be a good answer for you. It's a judgement call. I waited until i'd been in out of school about 25 years before I was ready to buy a house. Since i'd been careful with my money over that time, I had enough in investments that I could have bought the house for cash. Or I could have gone the other way and financed 80% of it for maximum leverage. I decided that what I was comfortable with was financing 50%. You'll have to work thru the numbers and decide what you are comfortable with. But I say again, if buying shared property you need a lawyer involved. It may be absolutely the right thing to do ... but you want to make sure everything is fully spelled out... and you'll also want appropriate terms written into your wills. (Being married would carry some automatic assumptions about joint ownership and survivor rights... but even then it's safer to make it all explicit.) Edit: Yes, making a larger down payment may let you negotiate a lower interest rate on the loan. You'll have to find out what each bank is willing to offer you, or work with a mortgage broker who can explore those options for you." }, { "docid": "402441", "title": "", "text": "\"Credit Scores / Rates are based on sometimes simple and sometimes quite complex Statistical Models (Generalised Linear Models, Neural Networks, Regression and Classification Trees, Mixture Models, etc).This depends on whether it is something more general like FICO or what large banks develop in-house. In any case, there are many legislation-dependent factors (Qualitative such as education, occupation security, sex, etc, payment history; or Quantitative such as age, liquidity and leverage ratios, etc). Now, most model that are used today are propriety and closely held trade secrets. The most important reason for this is actually because of the databases that feed the models. More better quality data is what makes the real difference ... although at the cutting-edge, the mathematicians/statisticians/computer scientists that design the algorithms will make a huge difference. Now, back to the main thing: The Credit Score/Rate is meant to be used only as an indicator for representing the Probability of Default (\"\"How likely you are to default on your obligation towards me?\"\" is what it means and that is largely based upon \"\"Has company/he/she honoured his financial obligations?\"\") of a certain consumer. In more sophisticated models, they may also use your industry sector or occupational and financial security to predict the future behaviour. However, this \"\"Credit Score\"\" has meaning only in relation to a \"\"Credit Limit\"\" (\"\"Can you pay back my $X?\"\"). The credit limit on the other hand is defined by your income level, debt/asset, etc). As a credit risk analyst, whether we are dealing with large corporate loans, mortgages, personal loans, etc), the principles are the same: One thing to consider is that factors considered in determining a credit score usually do not have a simple linear relationship. Consumer Profile types such as utilisation rate are a lot more about EFFECT than CAUSE: The most important thing is to honour your obligations, whether you pay before or after you spend makes little difference, so long as you pay in full and prior to maturity, your rate/score will improve with time. Financial Institutions have many ways to make money of everyone. Some, such as interest rates and fees are directly charged to you and some are charged to your goods-and-services providers. That has no bearing on your score. Sometimes it even makes sense to take on customers with rock-bottom ratings, lend them lots of money, and charge them to dirt. As you may well know, the recent financial crisis - with ongoing after-shocks and tremors - was the result of such practices.\"" }, { "docid": "47441", "title": "", "text": "Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/" }, { "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": "361442", "title": "", "text": "From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors" }, { "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": "107980", "title": "", "text": "\"Have you tried registering for social housing? Rent prices through social housing are typically cheaper than on the free market. You might be able to jump to the front of the waiting list due to your wife's unexpected handicap. See this link: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning/sociale-huurwoning-huren To more directly answer your question: I don't think there is any limitation on how your family needs to get the money to lend it to you. They could lookinto a personal loan (persoonlijke lening), but they might not be able to borrow enough. The Netherlands does not have a direct equivalent of a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC), but your family could potentially get a second mortgage (tweede hypotheek) on their house in order to get the money to lend you. However, be aware that this is a very risky endeavor. There are lots of unknowns that could leave you unable to pay or your family unable to pay. Receiving the money as a gift with the intention to repay it but no formal agreement in place may also leave you and your family in a difficult position. I would encourage you to visit a mortgage advisor together to discuss scenarios. Note that one possible option you may want to explore is a \"\"family mortgage\"\" (familiehypotheek). This is just a fancy way of saying that your family can act as (one of) your mortgage lenders. You and your family must comply with all relevant rules and regulations to do this, including them charging you interest and them reporting certain things to the tax authorities. Vereniging Eigen Huis has details on how to set such a mortgage up and how to manage the required reporting: https://www.eigenhuis.nl/webwinkel/hypotheekservice/familiehypotheek/\"" }, { "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": "549151", "title": "", "text": "Purchase loans tend to be more challenging to get the best possible rate, because you have to balance closing the loan and getting the contract. So there isn't as much time to shop around as when you do a refinance. I disagree with the sentiment to go with your local bank. Nothing wrong with asking at your local bank and using their numbers as a baseline, but chances are they won't be competitive. There are many reputable online mortgage originators that will show accurate fees and rates upfront assuming you provide accurate information. In the past there were a lot of issue with Good Faith Estimates being pretty much worthless. There were a fair number of horror stories about people showing up to closing and finding out fee or rates had increased dramatically. There was a law passed after the housing debacle that severely limits the shenanigans that lenders can do at closing and so there is less risk when going with a lesser known lender. In fact I would say the only real risk with a lender now days is choosing one that happens to be overloaded and or just has poor customer service in general. Personally I have found the most competitive rates from Zillow's mortgage service and the now defunct Google mortgage. The lenders tend to be smaller, but highly efficient. They are very much dependent on their online reputations. I have heard good things about a number of larger online lenders, but I don't have personal experience so I will leave them off. I personally wouldn't worry much about whether the loan is sold or not. Outside of refinancing I don't think I have ever talked to the bank servicing my mortgage about my mortgage. There just isn't much need to talk to them." }, { "docid": "34432", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no \"\"golden rule\"\" on how high of a credit limit an individual should have. There are 22 year olds that have $100,000 credit limits and 40 year olds that have $1000. The most important thing is to not over spend and pay your balance(s) in full every month. Seeing as you are doing that now, there is no downside to getting an increase.\"" }, { "docid": "222476", "title": "", "text": "\"Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a \"\"qualified mortgage\"\", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from \"\"unacceptable\"\" to \"\"acceptable\"\". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just \"\"sit tight\"\" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car. However I would only warn you that if you think your house + car payment is too much for you to comfortably afford, I'd strongly recommend you seriously reconsider your budget, current car ownership, and house purchasing plans. You might find that after the house purchase the car refi isn't available either, or fine print means it wouldn't provide the savings you thought it would. Don't buy now hoping an uncertain cost-saving measure will work out later.\"" }, { "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": "19233", "title": "", "text": "The card you have is one where you had to deposit an amount equivelent to your card limit -a secured limit credit card. Capital One is one if the primary cards of this type. The typical rules of credit card usage and building your credit, do not apply. So, yes, you want to use the card as much as possible and pay off your balance as often as is necessary to keep your limit freed up. You can actually pay the full balance plus 10%, and gain a little extra limit. Use your card as much as possible and call them and ask for a limit increase every three months. usually about 4 - 5 months in, they will increase your limit and do so without asking for a corresponding security deposit. This is really cool, because it means you are becoming credit-worthy. I know so much about this because I applied for this card for my son and am helping him in his attempt to repair his credit. His score increased by almost 200 points last year." }, { "docid": "220032", "title": "", "text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence." }, { "docid": "120283", "title": "", "text": "I think a simplified version of what you are asking is how much benefit you will receive from lower mortgage payments on your future $400k (roughly) home loan by having a higher credit score than now, and whether taking a car loan now will increase that benefit more than the value of the car loan. Since you already know the cost to you of the car loan, the other two thing you need to know in order to answer that question are: 1- the amount of increase a car loan gives your credit score, and 2- how much lower your mortgage interest rate will be with a higher credit score. Answering #1 seems like fuzzy credit magic to me that someone else may be able to answer, but #2 should be easy to determine by talking to a mortgage broker to see what rate you can get with your current credit score, and finding out how much higher it needs to be in order to get a better rate. Then you can take the difference in mortgage payments between the two rates and compare that to your car loan value." }, { "docid": "264586", "title": "", "text": "\"I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity. A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash. Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by. In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage. At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender. Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score. The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages. In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a \"\"freebie\"\" in a way. You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford. Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit. Don't paint yourself into a corner. Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "322825", "title": "", "text": "\"Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka \"\"people to lug your stuff\"\"). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "173929", "title": "", "text": "My recommendation is to not ask for a credit increase, but just increase the utilization of one card if you have multiple cards, and decrease the utilization of the others, and continue paying off all cards in full each month. In a few months, you will likely be offered a credit increase by the card that is getting increased use. The card company that is getting the extra business knows that you are paying off big bills each month and keeping your account in good standing, and they will likely offer you a credit increase all by themselves because they want to keep your business. If no offer is forthcoming, you can call the card company and ask for a credit increase. If they refuse, tell them that you will be charging very little on the card in the future (or even canceling your card, though that will cause a hit on your credit score) because of their refusal, and switch your high volume to a different card." } ]

[ { "docid": "30770", "title": "", "text": "How will going from 75% Credit Utilization to 0% Credit Utilization affect my credit score? might answer your question if US based. In the US, what counts is what shows on the bill. I've run $20K through a card with a $10K limit, but still ended the month under $2K by making extra payments. As long as you stay ahead of the limit by making mid-cycle payments, I see no issue with this strategy. If you keep running $30K/mo through a card with a $10K limit, the bank will eventually catch this and raise your limit as you will have proven you are more credit worthy." }, { "docid": "92390", "title": "", "text": "There are statutes of limitations on how long they can wait before coming after you. 14 years certainly exceeds it, which I believe means you are not legally required to pay. statutes of limitations by state The most likely scenario is that this is a scam. Second most likely is that this is a collections agency trying to trick you into paying even though they don't have legal authority to force you. In that case if you do pay them anything, then the statute of limitations restarts and they can legally start giving you trouble, so definitely don't do that. If they keep harassing you, you can probably take legal action against them. That's the worst case scenario, though. I'd just ignore them. At this point, if they are legally entitled to any money, which I highly doubt, they will need to take you to court. They are not going to do that over $1000. Blocking their number might be a reasonable idea. I would doubt whether they can even do anything to your credit rating over this issue. If you are worried about your credit, you can check your oustanding debts and negative incidents at www.annualcreditreport.com and see if you see anything. I would be surprised. Edit: You might read up about time-barred debts (assuming it's not a scam. I still think it is). FTC page on time-barred debt" }, { "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": "322825", "title": "", "text": "\"Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka \"\"people to lug your stuff\"\"). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)\"" }, { "docid": "103830", "title": "", "text": "Nobody can predict the affects of Brexit but it is wise to consider them. We saw the pound weaken after the vote to leave and it is possible the pound will weaken further after Brexit and this devaluation could be quite dramatic. If that happens it is likely to increase inflation, UK inflation has gone from under 1% around the time of the referendum to 3% today and it could well go higher. https://www.rateinflation.com/inflation-rate/uk-historical-inflation-rate If inflation continues to increase, the Bank of England is likely to put up interest rates, as it has historically done this to hedge against inflation. We have been living in a world of artificially low interest rates since the global crash of 2008 as the BoE has tried to stimulate recovery with lower rates. The rates cannot continue at this level if inflation starts to rise. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2387744/Base-rate-vs-inflation-chart-How-tell-things-really-got-better.html That in turn will put up mortgage rates. So for example if you have a £100k mortgage at 3.92% (currently this is a reasonable rate to have) your repayments will be £523 a month. If your mortgage rate goes up to say 7% then your repayments are £707 a month, if it goes up to 10% then it's £909 a month and so on. There is a mortgage calculator you can use to try playing with different amounts here: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/mortgages/mortgage-rate-calculator My advice would therefore be try to get as small a mortgage as you can and make sure you can afford it quite comfortably, in case rates go up and you need to find a few hundred pounds a month extra. There are other risks from Brexit as well, house prices could fall as people decide not to buy properties due to excessive interest rates! Overall nobody knows what will happen but it is good to be planning ahead for all eventualities. ** I am not a financial advisor, this advice is given in good faith but with no financial qualification." }, { "docid": "549151", "title": "", "text": "Purchase loans tend to be more challenging to get the best possible rate, because you have to balance closing the loan and getting the contract. So there isn't as much time to shop around as when you do a refinance. I disagree with the sentiment to go with your local bank. Nothing wrong with asking at your local bank and using their numbers as a baseline, but chances are they won't be competitive. There are many reputable online mortgage originators that will show accurate fees and rates upfront assuming you provide accurate information. In the past there were a lot of issue with Good Faith Estimates being pretty much worthless. There were a fair number of horror stories about people showing up to closing and finding out fee or rates had increased dramatically. There was a law passed after the housing debacle that severely limits the shenanigans that lenders can do at closing and so there is less risk when going with a lesser known lender. In fact I would say the only real risk with a lender now days is choosing one that happens to be overloaded and or just has poor customer service in general. Personally I have found the most competitive rates from Zillow's mortgage service and the now defunct Google mortgage. The lenders tend to be smaller, but highly efficient. They are very much dependent on their online reputations. I have heard good things about a number of larger online lenders, but I don't have personal experience so I will leave them off. I personally wouldn't worry much about whether the loan is sold or not. Outside of refinancing I don't think I have ever talked to the bank servicing my mortgage about my mortgage. There just isn't much need to talk to them." }, { "docid": "34844", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, it's unreasonable to think the prices will drop 10-20% in that time frame. Housing prices are not an equation that can can be solved to \"\"home prices are X% overvalued.\"\" You have 3 answers so far, Quanty's \"\"prices are inversely proportional to rates,\"\" Rob's \"\"there's no strong correlation between interest rates and house prices,\"\" and MB's, \"\"rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices.\"\" Any research into price history had better take every other variable into account. Articles that look at rates vs price don't always address a key item, income. Say we agree that the data show your city to be 10% too high. But if sellers like their high price and have some 'dig my heels in' power, prices won't drop. The seller simply stays put, and the supply/demand curves result not in a lower price, but in less supply. And the effect is to change the demographic of that area, i.e. attracting higher income earners. Rob linked to an article with a nice set of charts. One chart showing the US30 yr fixed rate and 'Real House Prices'. What results is a chart that can refute the relationship between rates and prices. But that would ignore an historical point that's too important to forget. The tumble that started in Jan '06 had nothing to do with the 30 year rate. It was the result of a series of insane financial products including 'interest only option ARMs' which permitted buyers to get approved for a purchase based on a payment that wasn't fixed, and would change to a fully amortizing mortgage at a higher rate that was unaffordable. A product that was a financial time bomb. Canada Banks offered no such product, and when the US market got pneumonia, Canada experienced a mild cold. With respect to any answers that offer US centric data to prove any hypothesis, I don't feel such comparisons are appropriate. Correlations, and the data used to prove them are an interesting thing. I can suggest that you take the US 30 year rate, along with our median income, or rather 25% of monthly median income. Calculate the mortgage that results. This translates nicely to the home a median family can afford. And I claim that long term this is the equilibrium price of that median home. But supply/demand has another factor, 'stickyness' or the more technical term, 'inelasticity of demand.' This means that for example, a 10% increase in the price of cigarettes does not cause a 10% drop in consumption. Each and every good has its own elasticity, and in the case of housing, a rise in cost would certainly impact the marginal buyers, but others will simply adjust their budgets. Not all buyers were planning to hit the bank's limit on what they could afford, so the rise doesn't change their mind, just their budget. Last - I know that Canada does not have a 30 year mortgage, most common is a 5 year rate with 30 year amortization. (correction/clarification, anyone?) The effect of this is less volatility in the market, since I believe your rates are not poised for the 2.5% to 4% jump implied by another response. Small increases can be absorbed. In a beautiful coincidence, the Federal Reserve Board sent me a link to The Interest Rate Elasticity of Mortgage Demand: Evidence From Bunching at the Conforming Loan Limit. It's a bit long but a worthwhile look at how the correlation isn't as instant as some might think.\"" }, { "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": "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": "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": "264586", "title": "", "text": "\"I guess I don't understand how you figure that taking out a car loan for $20k will result in adding $20k in equity. A car loan is a liability, not an asset like your $100k in cash. Besides, you don't get a dollar-for-dollar consideration when figuring a car's value against the loan it is encumbered by. In other words, the car is only worth what someone's willing to pay for it, not what your loan amount on it is. Remember that taking on a loan will increase your debt-to-income ratio, which is always a factor when trying to obtain a mortgage. At the same time, taking on new debt just prior to shopping for a mortgage could make it more difficult to find a lender. Every time a credit report (hard inquiry) is run on you, it temporarily impacts your credit score. The only exception to this rule is when it comes to mortgages. In the U.S., the way it works is that once you start shopping for a mortgage with lenders, for the next 30 days, additional inquiries into your credit report for purposes of mortgage funding do not count against your credit score, so it's a \"\"freebie\"\" in a way. You can't use this to shop for any other kind of credit, but the purpose is to allow you a chance to shop for the best mortgage rate you can get without adversely impacting your credit. In the end, my advice is to stop looking at how much house you can buy, and instead focus on a house with payments you can live with and afford. Trying to buy the most house based on what someone's willing to lend you leaves no room in the near-term for being able to borrow if the property has some repair needs, you want to furnish/upgrade it, or for any other unanticipated need which may arise that requires credit. Don't paint yourself into a corner. Just because you can borrow big doesn't mean you should borrow big. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "190891", "title": "", "text": "\"The price of real estate reacts to both demand for property and the rate of inflation and rate of income growth. Mortgage rates generally move as treasury rates move. See this paragraph: As we mentioned, intermediate term bonds and long-term mortgages (more properly, Mortgage-Backed Securities, or MBS) compete for the same fixed-income investor dollar. Treasury issues are 100% guaranteed to be repaid, but mortgages are not; therefore mortgages carry more risk of default or early repayment, which could potentially disturb the return on the investment. Therefore, mortgage rates must be priced higher to compensate for that risk. But how much higher are mortgages priced? In a normal market, the average \"\"spread\"\" or markup above the 100% secured Treasury is about 170 basis points, or 1.7%. That markup -- the spread relationship -- widens and contracts with a range of market conditions, investor appetites and supply of available product -- as well as the presence of competing investment opportunities, like corporate bonds or domestic (or foreign) equity markets Source: What Moves Mortgage Rates? And when the stock market crashes, investors tend to run to bonds and treasuries, which causes prices to go up and treasury yields to drop. Theoretically, this would also cause mortgage rates to drop, although most mortgage rates have a base price below which they cannot fall. How easy is it to profit from recent stock market drops and at what frequency? Incredibly difficult. The issue with your strategy is that you cannot predict the bottom of the market (at least us mortals can't). Just take the month of August for example. Stocks fell something like 15%? After the first 5-10% drop, people felt that the bottom was there, so they rushed in, only to have the market fall even more. How will you know when to invest? Even if the market falls by 50%, and there's a huge buying opportunity, and you increase the mortgage on your house, odds are your rates will increase because of the equity you take out. What if the market stays low for a very long time? Will you be able to maintain mortgage payments? Japan's stock bubble popped in the early 90's, and they've had two lost decade's now. Furthermore, there are issues of liquidity. What if you need more capital? Can you just sell a property or can you buy now property to draw equity against? What if the market is moving too fast for you to take advantage of. Don't ignore transaction costs and taxes either. Overall, there are a lot of ways that your idea can go wrong, and not many ways it can go right.\"" }, { "docid": "428953", "title": "", "text": "My first credit card was a JC Penney card, 30-ish years ago. I had a steady job paying maybe $11/hr at the time, and putting that on the application (with no other long-term debts) was all it took. They gave me a card and a $4100 limit!!!! I bought some clothes and stuff there every month or so, and paid the bill in full every month by the due date. After a few months of that, I was able to apply and get approved for a Visa card (having the JCP card already helped). After that, just keep on buying and paying in full every month. Eventually you'll buy a car, and the credit history from the cards will help you get approved for that. Continue making your payments on time every month. Same with a house/condo (just bigger). Basically, don't spend more that you can afford, make your payments regularly and on time. Pay in full--do NOT just make the minimum payments...that's a recipe for disaster!!! Don't miss payments, and try not to be late on them. A late payment once in a great while isn't the end of the world, as long as you pay the late fees and interest charges." }, { "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": "47441", "title": "", "text": "Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/" }, { "docid": "120283", "title": "", "text": "I think a simplified version of what you are asking is how much benefit you will receive from lower mortgage payments on your future $400k (roughly) home loan by having a higher credit score than now, and whether taking a car loan now will increase that benefit more than the value of the car loan. Since you already know the cost to you of the car loan, the other two thing you need to know in order to answer that question are: 1- the amount of increase a car loan gives your credit score, and 2- how much lower your mortgage interest rate will be with a higher credit score. Answering #1 seems like fuzzy credit magic to me that someone else may be able to answer, but #2 should be easy to determine by talking to a mortgage broker to see what rate you can get with your current credit score, and finding out how much higher it needs to be in order to get a better rate. Then you can take the difference in mortgage payments between the two rates and compare that to your car loan value." }, { "docid": "551175", "title": "", "text": "Is it possible to pay off my balance more than once in a payment period in order to increase the amount I can spend in a payment period? Yes you can pay off the balance more than once even if its not due. This will get applied to outstanding and you will be able to spend again. If so, is there a reason not to do this? There is no harm. However note that it generally takes 2-3 days for the credit to be applied to the card. Hence factor this in before you make new purchases. I just got a credit card to start rebuilding my credit. Spending close to you credit limit does not help much; compared to spending less than 10% of your credit limit. So the sooner you get your limit on card increased the better." }, { "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": "519296", "title": "", "text": "It would be good to know which country you are in? You are basically on the right track with your last point. Usually when you buy your first property you need to come up with a deposit and then borrow the remainder to have enough to purchase the property. In most cases (and most places) the standard percentage of loan to deposit is 80% to 20%. This is expressed as the Loan to Value Ratio (LVR) which in this case would be 80%. (This being the amount of the loan to the value of the property). Some banks and lenders will lend you more than the 80% but this can usually come with extra costs (in Australia the banks charge an extra percentage when you borrow called Loan Mortgage Insurance (LMI) if you borrow over 80% and the LMI gets more expensive the higher LVR you borrow). Also this practice of lending more than 80% LVR has been tightened up since the GFC. So if you are borrowing 80% of the value of the property you will need to come up with the remainder 20% deposit plus the additional closing costs (taxes - in Australia we have to pay Stamp Duty, solicitor or conveyancing fees, loan application fees, building and pest inspection costs, etc.). If you then want to buy a second property you will need to come up with the same deposit and other closing costs again. Most people cannot afford to do this any time soon, especially since the a good majority of the money they used to save before is now going to pay the mortgage and upkeep of your first property (especially if you used to say live with your parents and now live in the property and not rent it out). So what a lot of people do who want to buy more properties is wait until the LVR of the property has dropped to say below 60%. This is achieved by the value of the property going up in value and the mortgage principle being reduced by your mortgage payments. Once you have enough, as you say, collateral or equity in the first property, then you can refinance your mortgage and use this equity in your existing property and the value of the new property you want to buy to basically borrow 100% of the value of the new property plus closing costs. As long as the LVR of the total borrowings versus the value of both properties remains at or below 80% this should be achievable. You can do this in two ways. Firstly you could refinance your first mortgage and borrow up to 80% LVR again and use this additional funds as your deposit and closing costs for the second property, for which you would then get a second mortgage. The second way is to refinance one mortgage over the two properties. The first method is preferred as your mortgages and properties are separated so if something does go wrong you don't have to sell everything up all at once. This process can be quite slow at the start, as you might have to wait a few years to build up equity in one property (especially if you live in it). But as you accumulate more and more properties it becomes easier and quicker to do as your equity will increase quicker with tenants paying a good portion of your costs if not all (if you are positively geared). Of course you do want to be careful if property prices fall (as this may drastically reduce your equity and increase your total LVR or the LVR on individual properties) and have a safety net. For example, I try to keep my LVR to 60% or below, currently they are below 50%." } ]

[ { "docid": "162612", "title": "", "text": "You go public to raise money, to invest in the business and/or pay off the existing shareholders. It's really as simple as that. The advantage of being public is that your shares can easily be bought and sold, and so you can issue and sell new ones and your existing shareholders can sell out if they want to. The disadvantage is that you are much more tightly regulated, with more disclosure requirements, and also that you are exposed to much more pressure from your shareholders to maintain and increase your share price." } ]

[ { "docid": "471247", "title": "", "text": "The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth. Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away." }, { "docid": "566553", "title": "", "text": "The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc." }, { "docid": "186237", "title": "", "text": "\"> All food companies are required to have the answers to a set of questions available, via email or website, phone, or standard mail. Those questions are determined by a combination of independent panel and consumer polling. What those questions are may change over time, allowing for a reasonably generous grace period for the companies to prepare. Why should we trust big agro to release accurate information that may be damning to their business? This isn't like government where records have to be kept for FOIA requests. I'd expect them to pursue their own interests above all else, as they have done now by altering the laws in their favor. > I also think we need a series of third party organizations, rather than the USDA Organic system we have. What's acceptable and what isn't is super arguable, and rather than just taking the standard that exists (which IMO is not meaningful), folks can choose which standard they wish to head. Combined with the mandated transparency above, this would lower costs by removing the need for active investigation, and lead to more informed decision making on the part of the consumers. The problem is that the USDA has been underfunded to the point that it's completely incapable of doing the amount of inspections needed. Having multiple sets of competing standards would be confusing to the consumer, and unless the terms labeled have legal weight it ultimately doesn't mean anything. I recall all the products mislabeled as \"\"organic\"\" until legal standards were published defining the term. Consumers don't know what they need to be educated about, and rely on reporters and experts to make recommendations and revelations on their behalf. Today these groups are neutered to maximize agricultural profits, and public health is suffering. Agricultural workers are suffering. > Combined with the mandated transparency above, this would lower costs by removing the need for active investigation, and lead to more informed decision making on the part of the consumers. I suggest the following alternatives: * Fund the USDA properly * Allow journalists to report on our food supply chain without legal reprisal * Revoke all laws that restrict the first amendment when it comes to our food. \"\"Disparaging a food product\"\" should not be illegal in a free country. Public health should be more important than sales of unhealthful products.\"" }, { "docid": "22554", "title": "", "text": "It's actually embarrassing how bad some of our infrastructure is. If you've ever spent time in most of western Europe or the more modernized Asian cities, you'll realize that our infrastructure and public transit is essentially far behind the other leading countries in the world. It's a complicated topic, and there are a lot of reasons why (much of our public transit was built decades before European and Asian public transit, the State vs. Federal funding model, etc), but it's an issue that needs to get fixed and should be getting bipartisan support." }, { "docid": "588399", "title": "", "text": "\"Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have. The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is \"\"HSA compatible\"\". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a \"\"high deductible\"\" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any \"\"first dollar\"\" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered \"\"preventive care\"\".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division. I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.) See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details.\"" }, { "docid": "366132", "title": "", "text": "Is their risk taking creating jobs though? When i bought Apple stok a few years ao, what entrepreneurial spirit did I promote or encourage? Why not give extra tax breaks for the sale of stock purchased during a public offering (since that goes to helping the company) but not for secondhand (less necessary) trading. Should we give big tax breaks to people who lend businesses money?" }, { "docid": "597661", "title": "", "text": "I think what he was confused about is why EV is used if a company like Apple is going to have an EV much less than its market cap. His point was, if EV was the only way to measure the value of a firm, a company that hordes cash like APPL should be more valuable than its EV indicates. I think he failed to take into account that hording cash means the company isn't reinvesting in itself like it should, and therefore, at the time of a transaction, when the cash exits the balance sheet, you get significantly less in terms of remaining value. I can definitely see why people might get confused on EV though." }, { "docid": "96110", "title": "", "text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?" }, { "docid": "171236", "title": "", "text": "Here is something I have always wondered. Companies are required to go public after they have a certain number of investors. Used to be 500 now 2000. Can a company that has been forced to go public, then be made private again? How?" }, { "docid": "571001", "title": "", "text": "An Initial Public Offering (IPO), is the perfect first marketing of shares by the secretly purchased company to the public. The companies going public hick finance through IPO's for working capital, debt repayment, acquisitions, and a manager of other uses. If you want to learn the fundamental of the IPO best site is W3Teachers.com. For more INFO. visit :-http://www.w3teachers.com/IPO/IPO-DASHBOARD" }, { "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": "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": "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": "134902", "title": "", "text": "\"> company was incorporated, which makes it a public institution and that changes things. People keep saying this, but it simply is not true. No business is ever a \"\"public institution\"\". Even publicly traded companies are still *privately owned*. They are \"\"public\"\" only in the sense that they extend the opportunity to own a part of the company to the larger public. Insfar as this is true, they incur certain responsibilities to be transparent in reporting their financials, for example. But the idea that any private institution - corporation, church, parochical school, or small business ought to be forced to hire on the basis of someone else's idea of fairness is idiotic. It's a fundamental matter of property rights. Except in matters of fraud or force, I should be free to dispose of my property - say my business - in any way I wish, hiring, serving, or otherwise running that business as I see fit. If it is OK to force private sector institutions to hire and serve people because the government says so, then by the same reasoning the government should be able to force you to invite certain classes of people to your dinner parties. Even in the extreme cases of outright bigotry - say the KKK member that owns a business and hates blacks or the Muslim shop onwer that hates Jews - this should not be prevented. However offensive I most of the rest of my fellow citizens find the Klackers or the nutjob Islamists, they too have rights and privileges under our system and they too should not have those rights removed to suit my sense of fair play.\"" }, { "docid": "502567", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately it is not possible for an ordinary person to become an accredited investor without a career change. Gaining any legal certification in investments typically require sponsorship from an investment company (which you would be working for). There are reasons why these kinds of investments are not available to ordinary people directly, and you should definitely consult an RIA (registered investment adviser) before investing in something that isn't extremely standardized (traded on an major exchange). The issue with these kinds of investments is that they are not particularly standardized (in terms of legal structure/settlement terms). Registered investment advisers and other people who manage investments professionally are (theoretically) given specific training to understand these kinds of non-standard investments and are (theoretically) qualified to analyze the legal documentation of these, make well informed investment decisions, and make sure that their investors are not falling into any kind of pyramid scheme. There are many many kinds of issues that can arise when investing in startups. What % of the company/ the company's profits are you entitled to? How long can the company go without paying you a dividend? Do they have to pay you a dividend at all? How liquid will your investment in the company be? Unfortunately it is common for startups to accept investment but have legal restrictions on their investors ability to sell their stake in the business, and other non-standard contract clauses. For example, some investment agreements have a clause which states that you can only sell your stake in the business to a person who already owns a stake in the business. This makes your investment essentially worthless - the company could run for an exponential amount of time without paying you a dividend. If you are not able to sell your stake in the company you will not be able to earn any capital gains either. The probability of a startup eventually going public is extremely small.. so in this scenario it is likely you will end up gaining no return investment (though you can be happy to know you helped a company grow!) Overall, the restrictions for these kinds of investments exist to protect ordinary folks from making investing their savings into things that could get them burned. If you want to invest in companies on FundersClub build a relationship with an RIA and work with that person to invest your money. It is easier, less risky, and not all that more expensive :)" }, { "docid": "397450", "title": "", "text": "The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time. See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not. On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas?" }, { "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": "247590", "title": "", "text": "There is some truth to this. But the reverse could be seen as Apple. Where they did this, and it blew up until they gave it back to Jobs. Similarly, Bezos seems to be doing a good job as CEO. Gates and Ellison also were pretty successful! I agree though that when companies start to get major investors/go public, there should be some planning/thought to see if the Founder/CEO is actually a CEO type" }, { "docid": "370685", "title": "", "text": "Why the hell did they take a position on SOPA in the first place? Companies should only take public positions on issues when that position would have a positive effect on their business and their customers. Did they think they would sell more domain names as their customers get screwed out of the ones they already own?" } ]

[ { "docid": "48569", "title": "", "text": "Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expensive option for growth. Some of the options are debt, selling equity to venture capitalists, or selling equity on the open market (going public). If they choose debt, they pay interest on that debt. If they choose to sell equity to venture capitalists, then your shares get diluted, but hopefully the growth makes up for some of that dilution. If they choose to go public, dilution is still a concern, but the terms are usually a little more favorable for the company selling because the market is so liquid. In the US, current regulations for publicly traded companies cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1M/year, so that's the rule of thumb for considering whether going public makes sense when calculating the cost of fundraising, but as mentioned, regulations make it less advantageous for executives who choose to sell their shares after the company goes public. (They can't sell when good spot prices appear.) Going public is often considered the next step for a company that has grown past the initial venture funding phase, but if cash-flow is good, plenty of companies decide to just reinvest profits and skip the equity markets altogether." } ]

[ { "docid": "524271", "title": "", "text": "\"I do not agree with your assumption that people fully understand \"\"standards\"\". Perhaps without government intervention, an aircraft company may build planes that cost 25% less, but have a 3x more likelihood of crashing. Perhaps the company does not disclose that information about the crash incidence to its buyers. A discount airline may look at this company's planes and decide \"\"hey, they are 25% cheaper, let's use them\"\". Maybe they even know that the crash incidence has dropped from \"\"once per 100 years\"\" to \"\"once per 30 years\"\". Consumers now shop their air fare, and they repeatedly choose the discount airline because that airline can offer seats that are 10% cheaper than the other airlines who are using the more stringently safe planes. The other airlines say \"\"hey, look what is going on here, we should probably switch suppliers\"\". They do so - or perhaps the company that they used to buy from now relaxes their standards to \"\"compete\"\". Now, instead of a plane crashing every 5 years, one crashes every 2 years. Consumers have no idea that they are flying on planes that have a 3x crash rate than before. The airlines are not going to publicize this information. The aircraft manufacturers are not going to publicize this information either. It's going to be attributed to \"\"that's just the way things are\"\". Ultimately, people may stop choosing to fly, putting the industry into a death spiral, but that's a long-term drawback, and something that most short-term thinkers - which includes everyone in both the airline and manufacturer industry - will ignore. This is the problem with free-market libertarianism - it assumes that everyone has perfect information, and that people are capable of making reasonable choices between long and short term impacts. It also falls victim to the prisoner's dilemma because there is no coordination between actors - everyone chooses the path they believe to be most beneficial *to them and them alone*. Regulation levels the playing field in a way that benefits the entire system, and solves the problem of people being unable to process the impact of \"\"standards\"\" that have no immediate visibility. Here is a great example of how \"\"no standards\"\" work. http://nypost.com/2017/02/13/parents-recall-day-son-was-decapitated-on-water-slide/\"" }, { "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": "101604", "title": "", "text": "This is actually a very good point - any money that is spent on an employee in excess of the bare minimum required for them to perform their job should be viewed as a component of total rewards. You can directly extend OP's logic to any other form of compensation or benefits - Why let public employees take PTO except for when mandated by federal or state law? Why not target the 10th percentile of the market for all federal jobs? Why provide employees with retirement benefits? The answer to all of the above is that all elements of a total rewards package are necessary to attract, retain, and develop good employees. I've done consulting in the sphere of organizational structure, design, and development. I've seen the type of employees that a bare-bones total rewards philosophy attracts, and I'm not sure that I want them working for the public." }, { "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": "165163", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news. In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day. But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions. Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time. There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood. And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting. The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to. By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins. So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, \"\"this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them.\"\". Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect. They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up.\"" }, { "docid": "565453", "title": "", "text": "The fact you are asking this question, the number of up votes, uncovers the real cause of the banking crisis. Answers which mention that shareholders will fire a public company board are on the bottom. It is obvious that a company owners are interested in company value. And should have direct and easy impact on a directors board if management doesn't increase shareholders wealth. With large number of passive shareholders and current stock market system that impact is very limited. Hence your question. So bank directors, upper management aren't that interested in company value. They are mostly interested in theirs bonuses, their wealth increase, not shareholders. And that's the real problem of capitalism. Public companies slowly drift to function like companies in former socialistic countries. These is no owner, everything is owned by a nation." }, { "docid": "22554", "title": "", "text": "It's actually embarrassing how bad some of our infrastructure is. If you've ever spent time in most of western Europe or the more modernized Asian cities, you'll realize that our infrastructure and public transit is essentially far behind the other leading countries in the world. It's a complicated topic, and there are a lot of reasons why (much of our public transit was built decades before European and Asian public transit, the State vs. Federal funding model, etc), but it's an issue that needs to get fixed and should be getting bipartisan support." }, { "docid": "424055", "title": "", "text": "The problem is, increased productivity is what's eliminating jobs, a lot of jobs. And its not going to be something governments can change. (What they can change is preventing their existing jobs from going elsewhere by not giving companies tax breaks to do so. And they need to stop the promotion of privatization and offshoring and outsourcing via FTAs like GATS and TISA!) If you take the long view, its pretty much a good thing for society for people to be freed to move beyond many of these jobs that as our technology improves, are highly amenable to automation. People should be able to get the kind of educations they need to do them, for free, as part of the public education we give people, (and should continue to give people, despite these changes!) so we can all remain relevant and employed in the 21st century. We need to really take advantage of those years during which time the brain is growing so rapidly. Basically, we need to make 12 years do the work of 18 years now. Meaning that people when they graduate their basic education (K-12) should be able to function at a MA or MS level. Thats what we need to do to stop this permanent loss of employment. Because people with less than a masters degree are losing their jobs now. That should be the new normal." }, { "docid": "246058", "title": "", "text": "Hey, no worries at all. Like any business practice there are proper uses and abuses. First and foremost, companies should engage in allocation of capital that best serves their uses given prospects of 'returns' in a broad sense (this could very well include employee remuneration). After that, all excess funds should be distributed (through buybacks or dividends). There is without a doubt overincentivizing going on (i.e. buybacks preceding prudent capex or other investments) to boost C-suite pay. In other cases it is actually used to hide declining performance altogether (declining earnings compensated by decreasing outstanding shares). This is simply poor management using these tools. They would have most likely used others were these not made available to them (e.g underpaying/understaffing). It's an investors job to allocate capital that rewards good management practice. The problem is that this is an ideal made harder by obfuscation on the part of management, lack of governance and even the rise of passive management among others. I'm in private equity myself (with a strong focus on prudence and longevity of companies), so these are considerations that go without saying. I'm sometimes quite astonished what public companies get away with, but you can't blame tools for being used poorly or being available." }, { "docid": "502332", "title": "", "text": "The company doesn't necessarily have to go public. They can also be worth money if the company is acquired. Also keep in mind that even if the company does eventually go public, your shares can essentially be wiped out by a round of pre-IPO funding that gives the company a low valuation. You could ask:" }, { "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": "291013", "title": "", "text": "I am trying to understand the mindset of these authors. They cite the research that shows top-10% companies in a given industry are much more productive than others, especially compared to the bottom 10%. OK, that's to be expected. That's why they are in the top 10%. They employees in those top-tier companies get paid more. Again, standard economics. Marginally higher productivity results in marginally higher wages. Got it. Then the concluding paragraph says: > This is the conundrum that policy makers have to solve: Productivity gaps create inequality. Public policy can and should help. But in trying to protect workers, policies might well endanger future productivity growth, and with it, workers’ prospects. Well, yeah. If you subsidize firms and employees that aren't competitive then you get... less productivity and earnings. God damn communists. How about instead you let people work it out in the marketplace. Those that can't keep up will fail and move on to other things. Yes, that temporary situation sucks for the people involved. It's Schumpeter's creative destruction in action." }, { "docid": "117177", "title": "", "text": "I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public." }, { "docid": "317570", "title": "", "text": "I see a couple of ways of getting at this. One would be to switch to a VAT. That would capture a good amount of revenue on anything that's made here. Second, I want IP to be taxed. We pay property taxes, so I think that trademarks and copyrighted works should be taxed just like how real property is taxed. You want to register the Burger King logo in the US? Sure thing! You will pay a percentage of its value every year and you get to use it exclusively with the full protection of the US courts your taxes help fund. I also see this as a good way out of the IP cesspool we're currently in. Copyright has become unreasonably long mostly because Disney doesn't want to lose the rights to Mickey Mouse. Look, I *am* sympathetic to Disney's argument. Mickey genuinely is important to them. But Mickey is fucking things up for everyone else. So I think Disney should pay a percentage of Mickey's value every year. In exchange, they keep their copyright forever as long as they keep paying. Now, if the copyright tax isn't paid, then the property becomes public domain forever. This would let Disney have what they want while non-profitable copyrights become public domain, as they should. Anyhow, the one thing all the big tax-avoiding companies have in common is IP. If you tax their IP in exchange for protection in US courts, there's really no way around that. They will either have to pay or let their IP go public domain." }, { "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": "428082", "title": "", "text": "Hah. So, public employees get less rights as employees than private ones? What about private employees of companies with public contracts? I'm guessing that you don't think private employees should have the right to bargain either. How is having collective bargaining rights holding the public hostage? Hyperbole much? We're bound by the same arbitrators. Cops and Firefighters can't strike." }, { "docid": "494844", "title": "", "text": "\"Three things.... First, it sounds like you have gotten incredibly lucky. Maybe you were born into a stable family, and to date haven't had any major medical issues. I know you say likely retire, but what if god forbid you have something medically that comes up which wipes out your savings. What if your investments go south? There are many, many people who made similar choices such as you and it didn't work out for them. Why should they have to work until they are 70 when you get to retire at 40? Second, none of the things you mentioned happened in a vacuum. Society, and yes the government, has support systems in place that made all of this possible for you. Why should then you get to hoard all the wealth from making this possible for others while you get to pat yourself on the back for making \"\"good choices\"\". Third, maybe along the way your investments actually hurt society? Maybe that growing company was able to grow because they invested in a dirty technology, or outsourced a lot of jobs, or compromised peoples privacy in the name of profits. Why should you, just by the amount of your \"\"capital\"\" get to choose how to impact society while the workers at those companies and the people in the surrounding community don't. We are suppose to live in a democracy.....\"" }, { "docid": "471247", "title": "", "text": "The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth. Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away." }, { "docid": "384696", "title": "", "text": "This answer should be taken as a counterpoint to Thevin S's excellent answer. I have comprehensive insurance on my vehicle. That is, if I crashed it and wrote it off, my insurance would cover the replacement costs. Now, if this happened, I would be able to deal with the replacement costs myself, even without insurance. It would not significantly impact my lifestyle and would not put my emergency funds at risk, though obviously I wouldn't be happy about this. As the insurance company is planning on making money off of me, it's clearly not in my financial best interests to carry this insurance. Statistically speaking, it's a cost to me, and a profit for the insurance company. So why do I do it? Because I find it easy to pay a small amount of money every month for the peace of mind that, if I crash my car, I will not have to cover the large expense. I am (perhaps irrationally) risk averse. I'm happier paying a small amount of money in exchange for a guarantee that I will not have to pay a large amount of money. I mitigate a potentially larger cost, albeit with low likelihood, for the certainty of a smaller cost (my monthly insurance payments). This is separate from the mandatory PL/PD (public liability, public damage) insurance that I am required to cover. That insurance fits into Thevin's definition of a devastating event." } ]

[ { "docid": "105129", "title": "", "text": "\"The reason to go public is to get money. Not to be snarky, but your question is like asking, \"\"Why should a company try to sell its products, when if they just piled them up in a warehouse they wouldn't have to worry about shipping and customer complaints and collecting sales tax?\"\" The answer, of course, is because they want the money. Sure, there are disadvantages to going public, like more regulation, required financial disclosures, and having to answer to stockholders. That's the price you pay for accepting money from people. They're not going to give you money for nothing.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "171236", "title": "", "text": "Here is something I have always wondered. Companies are required to go public after they have a certain number of investors. Used to be 500 now 2000. Can a company that has been forced to go public, then be made private again? How?" }, { "docid": "186237", "title": "", "text": "\"> All food companies are required to have the answers to a set of questions available, via email or website, phone, or standard mail. Those questions are determined by a combination of independent panel and consumer polling. What those questions are may change over time, allowing for a reasonably generous grace period for the companies to prepare. Why should we trust big agro to release accurate information that may be damning to their business? This isn't like government where records have to be kept for FOIA requests. I'd expect them to pursue their own interests above all else, as they have done now by altering the laws in their favor. > I also think we need a series of third party organizations, rather than the USDA Organic system we have. What's acceptable and what isn't is super arguable, and rather than just taking the standard that exists (which IMO is not meaningful), folks can choose which standard they wish to head. Combined with the mandated transparency above, this would lower costs by removing the need for active investigation, and lead to more informed decision making on the part of the consumers. The problem is that the USDA has been underfunded to the point that it's completely incapable of doing the amount of inspections needed. Having multiple sets of competing standards would be confusing to the consumer, and unless the terms labeled have legal weight it ultimately doesn't mean anything. I recall all the products mislabeled as \"\"organic\"\" until legal standards were published defining the term. Consumers don't know what they need to be educated about, and rely on reporters and experts to make recommendations and revelations on their behalf. Today these groups are neutered to maximize agricultural profits, and public health is suffering. Agricultural workers are suffering. > Combined with the mandated transparency above, this would lower costs by removing the need for active investigation, and lead to more informed decision making on the part of the consumers. I suggest the following alternatives: * Fund the USDA properly * Allow journalists to report on our food supply chain without legal reprisal * Revoke all laws that restrict the first amendment when it comes to our food. \"\"Disparaging a food product\"\" should not be illegal in a free country. Public health should be more important than sales of unhealthful products.\"" }, { "docid": "129481", "title": "", "text": "I'm going to guess that you found this because of a stock screener. This company went through a 1:20 reverse split on June 30, so every 20 shares outstanding became a single share. Where before you had 20 shares worth $100 you now have 1 share worth $100, the value of the company doesn't change because of a split. This company was never trading for $30+ per share. Reverse splits are typical of a floundering company trading on an exchange that has a minimum share price requirement. While reverse splits don't change the value of the company, just the number of shares outstanding and the price per share, no healthy company performs a reverse split. Reverse splits are generally a massive signal to jump ship... The company seems to be trading for $1 right now, why the value fell from a pre-split $1.65 ($33/20) to $1 is anyone's guess; how the company ever got to $1.65 is also anyone's guess. But looking at the most recent 10-Q there are numerous causes for concern: Note 2. Capital Stock On March 6, 2017, the Company issued as compensation for services provided a total of 650,000 common shares with a fair value of $390,000 to a third party. The fair value of the shares was based on the price quoted on the OTC pink sheets on the grant date. this indicates a share price of $0.60 ($390,000/650,000) as of 3/6/2017, just to reinforce that the google price chart doesn't show the true past but a past adjusted for the split Results of Operations The three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016 For the three months ended March 31, 2017 compared to the three months ended March 31, 2016, total revenues were $0 and $0, respectively, and net losses from operations were $414,663 and $26,260, respectively. The net losses were attributable to costs attributable to operating as a public company, in particular, common stock with a valuation of $390,000 that was issued to an investor relations firm in the first quarter of 2017. Going Concern As of March 31, 2017, there is substantial doubt regarding our ability to continue as a going concern as we have not generated sufficient cash flow to fund our proposed business. We have suffered recurring losses from operations since our inception. In addition, we have yet to generate an internal cash flow from our business operations or successfully raised the financing required to develop our proposed business. As a result of these and other factors, our independent auditor has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. Liquidity and Capital Resources We had no cash as of the date of March 31, 2017. Additionally, since there is no balance sheet in the last 10-Q (another bad sign), the last annual report 10-K has this balance sheet: So the company: So why did the stock value plummet? It's anyones' guess but there is no shortage of ways to justify it. In fact, it's reasonable to ask how is this company still worth $3mm ($1 * 3mm shares outstanding)..." }, { "docid": "61319", "title": "", "text": "We live in a community, and as citizens we all have the right to shop in public shops and eat in public restaurants. If that right is abridged, then freedom is abridged. And the freedom to enjoy the public services of one's community is far more important than the freedom to deny services due to one's prejudice. Either way someone loses a bit of freedom. Which is more important? According to you the freedom to do what you will with your property outweighs any and all possible consequences of exercising that freedom. This is a very extreme viewpoint. I know because I once held it. >Go start a business and get back to us Yeah I did that. 15 years ago and still going. And I actually hire people. You may not want to make too many assumptions about the person you are debating. As a business owner I would happily choose a world in which I had to hire the best qualified candidate regardless of my prejudices over one in which other business owners could arbitrarily refuse me services that are offered to the general public just because of who I am. >If a person is refused service for any reason, they can find another store, shop, or vendor. And what if all the stores in your town have similar policies? Am I to drive to the next town every time I need to go shopping? What if all the shops within 1000 miles have discriminatory policies? How am I to live? The only reason you can make this argument is because of the success of the civil rights act. If it was repealed today you would likely be able to avoid racist restaurants and shops by going elsewhere. If it had never existed that would not be the case. >THERE IS NO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN LIFE FOR SUCCESS That is why I very specifically said that all citizens must have a REALISTIC opportunity for success, and NOT that there should be EQUAL opportunity (impossible) or equal outcomes (ridiculous and counter-productive). What must be avoided is the creation of an economic status quo that ensures the poor remain poor and the rich remain rich. Such a status quo is just slavery without the whips. Even if the government is not enforcing the status quo, it can be just as hard to break free from. >Forceful acts by government are ALWAYS far worse than forceful acts in the private sector It is the results of the act of force that matters, not its source or methodology. This once again is an argument from pure ideology. Because you believe that government force is always worse than the private sector, you are unable to see examples of how the private sector can limit our freedoms in even worse ways. Simply stating that government acts of force are always worse does not prove it so. >that's exactly where your collectivist sewer leads I would argue that the centers of poverty you listed are much more a symptom of the systematic undercutting of education, social services and other support systems that once gave the underprivileged a realistic way to improve their lot in life. Now, with blue-collar wages on the decline and public education gutted, poverty gets more entrenched and harder to overcome. You really think it's going to get better for these people if we take away the minimum wage? Do away with public schools? Food stamps? Medicaid? Is there any point at which lack of social mobility becomes a more damaging than minor economic regulations? Is it OK to effectively return to the feudal system if it means nobody will ever have one penny taxed from them and given to someone who wasn't born rich? Nobody made you get born poor so there's no force and therefore everything is right and good? Such a shallow view of our moral obligations as members of a society. We live in a society. Extreme individualism will lead only to self-destruction just as fast as extreme collectivism. The only rational view is to analyze the facts, weigh the benefits and consequences to any given policy, and make decisions without any preconceived notion of what the solution should look like. In the case at hand, I, and the vast majority of people, think the minor inconvenience of not being able to make discriminatory hiring decisions is far outweighted by the benefits of not having large segments of the population chronically unemployed and impoverished because their race. The only effective argument against this would be to posit a way in which the benefits of this policy could be achieved (or bettered) without the use of government coercion, and that I haven't seen. >You'd better grow up fast on this one Remember, you are talking to someone who thought and argued exactly the same viewpoint you are now espousing for 10 years. I was even a delegate to the national Libertarian convention once. I was a true believer. I did grow up." }, { "docid": "400848", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm sorry, i should have said I was saying that sarcastically, but those are the arguments which I suspect are being made. >*\"\"You did not answer my question: Where's my advocate in the negotiations?\"\"* Its doubtful that they would be among the hundreds (thousands?) of lobbyists. Unless you are a corporation and you have one. >*\"\"Why should I believe the negotiators have my best interests at heart?\"\"* I don't think the negotiators have your or the country's best interests at heart. I think they barely even play lip service to it any more. >*\"\"What's the point of negotiating a treaty that doesn't have the people's interests at heart?\"\"* Well, look at all the things that are in TTIP, for example, here in the US, by underfunding government agencies tasked with enforcement of existing laws and recommending new ones, the chemical industry has succeeded for the last 25 years or so at preventing a lot of needed regulation of a lot of demonstrably dangerous substances. Particularly a class of chemicals called [endocrine disruptors](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/tag/Endocrine-Disruptors/). Meanwhile, Europe has put into place much more stringent regulations based on the Precautionary Principle, which requires that chemical industry prove some chemicals are safe to get them approved, while the US the key issue is overcoming lobbyists and even chemicals which are clearly dangerous have to go through a lot of hoops before they are regulated, and even when its shown to be extremely likely they are dangerous, it is very difficult when lobbyists are there often regulators are political appointees from the industries they are supposed to regulate. There is no denying that having different regulations is complicated, but what they are promoting as a solution is not a good approach. They are pushing for what they call regulatory coherence- which is basically the forcing of all environmental and chemical laws in a bunch of countries [into the same mold](http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ToxicPartnership_Mar2014.pdf). It would overrule a lot of state laws involving things like fracking..and food safety - Instead of raising our standards to the European level, they want to bring theirs down, and get rid of the (IMO, quite prudent) Precautionary Principle, which I think is incredibly stupid. But, people are not aware of this. There- I think has clearly been a high level decision - some kind of gentlemans agreement between the 5 media corporations that control virtually all US media, to never cover some issues. To not cover those issues at all. But in Europe they have a similar problem, just not quite as bad. But there people make more of an effort to find out whats really happening. Also there are fewer astroturfers. (the US is known for massive levels of astroturfing in its online world) For example, in the UK, there is a lot of protesting because of the implicit goal of the FTAs is to privatize public services, although they deny it, its right there [in agreements like GATS](http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm), framing public services as bad, some kind of theft from companies, and ratcheting any small privatization into a permanent entitlement for that company to that market so its permanent, even if its unsuccessful. Thats been [disastrous to their NHS](https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/john-hilary/on-ttip-and-nhs-they-are-trying-to-bamboozle-us). How did it get this way? In part its due to the failure of Americans to seek out facts, something people really have to do because there are forces spending a lot of effort into hiding them and trying to exploit positions of trust to create a dangerous false security.. Its a direct result of so much money in politics. The so called \"\"stakeholders\"\" spend a lot of money and energy into getting candidates into office. So then they expect something in return. This is related: http://www.chemsec.org/what-we-do/influencing-public-policy/news-updates/1321-letter-to-the-ttip-negotiators-signed-by-178-groups\"" }, { "docid": "430877", "title": "", "text": "Wow I love some of these answers. Remember why you are investing in the first place. For me I like Dividend stocks and Dividend Capturing. Here is why. With over 3500 dividend stock companies paying out dividends this year, that means I can get a dividend check almost every day. What about if the stock goes down you ask? Well out of these 3500 companies there is a small group of these stocks that have consistently increased their dividend payout to their investors for over 25 years and a smaller group that have been increasing every year their pay outs for over 50 years. Yes Kennedy was in office back then and to this day they consistently pay higher and higher dividend payments to their investors, every year... for 50 years. As for the Dividend Capturing strategy, that allows me to collect up 10-20 checks per month with that little effort. As for the stock going down... Here is a little tidbit that most buyers overlook. Stock price is more or less the public's perception of the value of a certain company. Earnings, balance sheet, cash flow, market cap and a few other things in the quarterly report will give you a better answer to the value of a company. If stock price goes down while earning and market go keep going up... what does that tell you?" }, { "docid": "471247", "title": "", "text": "The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth. Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away." }, { "docid": "2103", "title": "", "text": "My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision." }, { "docid": "397450", "title": "", "text": "The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time. See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not. On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas?" }, { "docid": "134902", "title": "", "text": "\"> company was incorporated, which makes it a public institution and that changes things. People keep saying this, but it simply is not true. No business is ever a \"\"public institution\"\". Even publicly traded companies are still *privately owned*. They are \"\"public\"\" only in the sense that they extend the opportunity to own a part of the company to the larger public. Insfar as this is true, they incur certain responsibilities to be transparent in reporting their financials, for example. But the idea that any private institution - corporation, church, parochical school, or small business ought to be forced to hire on the basis of someone else's idea of fairness is idiotic. It's a fundamental matter of property rights. Except in matters of fraud or force, I should be free to dispose of my property - say my business - in any way I wish, hiring, serving, or otherwise running that business as I see fit. If it is OK to force private sector institutions to hire and serve people because the government says so, then by the same reasoning the government should be able to force you to invite certain classes of people to your dinner parties. Even in the extreme cases of outright bigotry - say the KKK member that owns a business and hates blacks or the Muslim shop onwer that hates Jews - this should not be prevented. However offensive I most of the rest of my fellow citizens find the Klackers or the nutjob Islamists, they too have rights and privileges under our system and they too should not have those rights removed to suit my sense of fair play.\"" }, { "docid": "592907", "title": "", "text": "Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank. Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything. A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad. The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly. So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings. Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings." }, { "docid": "306561", "title": "", "text": "\"The case you are looking at is rather special, because the Chinese government for the longest time did not allow foreigners to invest in Chinese stocks. The ADRs explained in @DStanley's answer are a way around that restriction; recently there are some limited official ways, In general, it is perfectly normal for a stock to appear on different exchanges, in different currencies, and it's all the \"\"real\"\" stock. Because remember: a stock exchange is really nothing more than a fancy place for people to buy and sell stocks. There is absolutely no reason why a specific stock should only be traded in one place. Companies that have decided to be publically tradeable generally want to be traded in as many exchanges as possible, because it makes the stock more liquid, which helps their shareholders. Individual exchanges have different requirements for a stock to be listed for trading there, some may even do it without the company's explicit approval.\"" }, { "docid": "494844", "title": "", "text": "\"Three things.... First, it sounds like you have gotten incredibly lucky. Maybe you were born into a stable family, and to date haven't had any major medical issues. I know you say likely retire, but what if god forbid you have something medically that comes up which wipes out your savings. What if your investments go south? There are many, many people who made similar choices such as you and it didn't work out for them. Why should they have to work until they are 70 when you get to retire at 40? Second, none of the things you mentioned happened in a vacuum. Society, and yes the government, has support systems in place that made all of this possible for you. Why should then you get to hoard all the wealth from making this possible for others while you get to pat yourself on the back for making \"\"good choices\"\". Third, maybe along the way your investments actually hurt society? Maybe that growing company was able to grow because they invested in a dirty technology, or outsourced a lot of jobs, or compromised peoples privacy in the name of profits. Why should you, just by the amount of your \"\"capital\"\" get to choose how to impact society while the workers at those companies and the people in the surrounding community don't. We are suppose to live in a democracy.....\"" }, { "docid": "531356", "title": "", "text": "I actually think your boss is creating a problem for you. Of course it's taxable. The things IRS will look at (and they very well might, as it does stand out) what kind of payment is that. Why did it not go through payroll? The company may be at risk here for avoiding FICA/FUTA/workers' compensation insurance/State payroll taxes. Some are mandatory, and cannot be left to the employee to pay. On your side it raises your taxable income without the appropriate withholding, you may end up paying underpayment penalties for that (that is why you've been suggested to keep proofs of when you were paid). Also, it's employment income. If it is not wages - you're liable for self-employment taxes (basically the portion of FICA that the employer didn't pay, and your own FICA withholding). When you deposit the check is of no matter to the IRS, its when you got it that determines when you should declare the income. You don't have a choice there. I suggest asking the company payroll why it didn't go through them, as it may be a problem for you later on." }, { "docid": "588399", "title": "", "text": "\"Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have. The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is \"\"HSA compatible\"\". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a \"\"high deductible\"\" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any \"\"first dollar\"\" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered \"\"preventive care\"\".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division. I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.) See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details.\"" }, { "docid": "374145", "title": "", "text": "Why would you want the company who failed to be the one monitoring your credit? Bankrupt them and be done with them. They're likely going to be sued into insolvency and that in turn should create an about-face to the other credit companies. The last thing anyone should want is giving additional or further responsibility to a company with the largest personal information leak of all time." }, { "docid": "502567", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately it is not possible for an ordinary person to become an accredited investor without a career change. Gaining any legal certification in investments typically require sponsorship from an investment company (which you would be working for). There are reasons why these kinds of investments are not available to ordinary people directly, and you should definitely consult an RIA (registered investment adviser) before investing in something that isn't extremely standardized (traded on an major exchange). The issue with these kinds of investments is that they are not particularly standardized (in terms of legal structure/settlement terms). Registered investment advisers and other people who manage investments professionally are (theoretically) given specific training to understand these kinds of non-standard investments and are (theoretically) qualified to analyze the legal documentation of these, make well informed investment decisions, and make sure that their investors are not falling into any kind of pyramid scheme. There are many many kinds of issues that can arise when investing in startups. What % of the company/ the company's profits are you entitled to? How long can the company go without paying you a dividend? Do they have to pay you a dividend at all? How liquid will your investment in the company be? Unfortunately it is common for startups to accept investment but have legal restrictions on their investors ability to sell their stake in the business, and other non-standard contract clauses. For example, some investment agreements have a clause which states that you can only sell your stake in the business to a person who already owns a stake in the business. This makes your investment essentially worthless - the company could run for an exponential amount of time without paying you a dividend. If you are not able to sell your stake in the company you will not be able to earn any capital gains either. The probability of a startup eventually going public is extremely small.. so in this scenario it is likely you will end up gaining no return investment (though you can be happy to know you helped a company grow!) Overall, the restrictions for these kinds of investments exist to protect ordinary folks from making investing their savings into things that could get them burned. If you want to invest in companies on FundersClub build a relationship with an RIA and work with that person to invest your money. It is easier, less risky, and not all that more expensive :)" }, { "docid": "165163", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news. In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day. But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions. Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time. There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood. And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting. The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to. By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins. So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, \"\"this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them.\"\". Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect. They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up.\"" }, { "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": "471247", "title": "", "text": "The purpose is to go public but also to generate more wealth. The real money comes when market values you at a price more than your cash flow. If a company brings in $1000 of cash flow, then that is what the employees and owners have to distribute among themselves. But if they are likely to increase to $2000 next and $4000 next year and they go public then the stock will do well. In this case, the promoters and employees with options/RSUs will benefit as well. The increased visibility is also very useful. Look at Google or FB. They didn't need the IPO proceed when they went public. They had enough cash from their business but then they would only have $1-10 billion a year. But due to the IPO their investors and employees have a huge net worth. Basically, with just a small % of shares in the public you can value the company at a high price valuing in the future cash flows (with a discount rate etc.). So instead of realizing the profit over the next 15 years, you get to enjoy it right away." } ]

[ { "docid": "291013", "title": "", "text": "I am trying to understand the mindset of these authors. They cite the research that shows top-10% companies in a given industry are much more productive than others, especially compared to the bottom 10%. OK, that's to be expected. That's why they are in the top 10%. They employees in those top-tier companies get paid more. Again, standard economics. Marginally higher productivity results in marginally higher wages. Got it. Then the concluding paragraph says: > This is the conundrum that policy makers have to solve: Productivity gaps create inequality. Public policy can and should help. But in trying to protect workers, policies might well endanger future productivity growth, and with it, workers’ prospects. Well, yeah. If you subsidize firms and employees that aren't competitive then you get... less productivity and earnings. God damn communists. How about instead you let people work it out in the marketplace. Those that can't keep up will fail and move on to other things. Yes, that temporary situation sucks for the people involved. It's Schumpeter's creative destruction in action." }, { "docid": "424055", "title": "", "text": "The problem is, increased productivity is what's eliminating jobs, a lot of jobs. And its not going to be something governments can change. (What they can change is preventing their existing jobs from going elsewhere by not giving companies tax breaks to do so. And they need to stop the promotion of privatization and offshoring and outsourcing via FTAs like GATS and TISA!) If you take the long view, its pretty much a good thing for society for people to be freed to move beyond many of these jobs that as our technology improves, are highly amenable to automation. People should be able to get the kind of educations they need to do them, for free, as part of the public education we give people, (and should continue to give people, despite these changes!) so we can all remain relevant and employed in the 21st century. We need to really take advantage of those years during which time the brain is growing so rapidly. Basically, we need to make 12 years do the work of 18 years now. Meaning that people when they graduate their basic education (K-12) should be able to function at a MA or MS level. Thats what we need to do to stop this permanent loss of employment. Because people with less than a masters degree are losing their jobs now. That should be the new normal." }, { "docid": "2103", "title": "", "text": "My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision." }, { "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": "566553", "title": "", "text": "The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc." }, { "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": "597661", "title": "", "text": "I think what he was confused about is why EV is used if a company like Apple is going to have an EV much less than its market cap. His point was, if EV was the only way to measure the value of a firm, a company that hordes cash like APPL should be more valuable than its EV indicates. I think he failed to take into account that hording cash means the company isn't reinvesting in itself like it should, and therefore, at the time of a transaction, when the cash exits the balance sheet, you get significantly less in terms of remaining value. I can definitely see why people might get confused on EV though." }, { "docid": "530", "title": "", "text": "Public companies sometimes buy up all their shares in order to go private^(1). Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? If so, [this article](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/08/public-companies-privatize-go-private.asp) might be of interest to you. ^(1) Actually, most of the time, they partner with private equity firms to do it, but I think the effect is essentially what you're describing." }, { "docid": "235670", "title": "", "text": "\"Then why is it that no one needs to do such audits in private corporations? It's as if they assume that every public employee is corrupt, and from my experience it wouldn't be too far from the truth. In a private organization there's a sense of responsibility that's entirely unknown in the public sector. There's no need to count office chairs because if one of them would go missing someone would report it immediately. In the public sector everyone would say \"\"it's not my job to count chairs\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "22554", "title": "", "text": "It's actually embarrassing how bad some of our infrastructure is. If you've ever spent time in most of western Europe or the more modernized Asian cities, you'll realize that our infrastructure and public transit is essentially far behind the other leading countries in the world. It's a complicated topic, and there are a lot of reasons why (much of our public transit was built decades before European and Asian public transit, the State vs. Federal funding model, etc), but it's an issue that needs to get fixed and should be getting bipartisan support." }, { "docid": "165163", "title": "", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, there are often many factors that are contributing to a stock's movement other than the latest news. In particular, the overall market sentiment and price movement very often is the primary driver in any stock's change on a given day. But in this case, I'd say your anecdotal observation is correct: All else equal, announcements of layoffs tend to drive stock prices upwards. Here's why: To the public, layoffs are almost always a sign that a company is willing to do whatever is needed to fix an already known and serious problem. Mass layoffs are brutally hard decisions. Even at companies that go through cycles of them pretty regularly, they're still painful every time. There's a strong personal drain on the chain of executives that has to decide who loses their livelihood. And even if you think most execs don't care (and I think you'd be wrong) it's still incredibly distracting. The process takes many weeks, during which productivity plummets. And it's demoralizing to everyone when it happens. So companies very rarely do it until they think they have to. By that point, they are likely struggling with some very publicly known problems - usually contracting (or negative) margins. So, the market's view of the company at the time just before layoffs occur is almost always, \"\"this company has problems, but is unable or unwilling to solve them.\"\". Layoffs signal that both of those possibilities are incorrect. They suggest that the company believes that layoffs will fix the problem, and that they're willing to make hard calls to do so. And that's why they usually drive prices up.\"" }, { "docid": "502567", "title": "", "text": "Unfortunately it is not possible for an ordinary person to become an accredited investor without a career change. Gaining any legal certification in investments typically require sponsorship from an investment company (which you would be working for). There are reasons why these kinds of investments are not available to ordinary people directly, and you should definitely consult an RIA (registered investment adviser) before investing in something that isn't extremely standardized (traded on an major exchange). The issue with these kinds of investments is that they are not particularly standardized (in terms of legal structure/settlement terms). Registered investment advisers and other people who manage investments professionally are (theoretically) given specific training to understand these kinds of non-standard investments and are (theoretically) qualified to analyze the legal documentation of these, make well informed investment decisions, and make sure that their investors are not falling into any kind of pyramid scheme. There are many many kinds of issues that can arise when investing in startups. What % of the company/ the company's profits are you entitled to? How long can the company go without paying you a dividend? Do they have to pay you a dividend at all? How liquid will your investment in the company be? Unfortunately it is common for startups to accept investment but have legal restrictions on their investors ability to sell their stake in the business, and other non-standard contract clauses. For example, some investment agreements have a clause which states that you can only sell your stake in the business to a person who already owns a stake in the business. This makes your investment essentially worthless - the company could run for an exponential amount of time without paying you a dividend. If you are not able to sell your stake in the company you will not be able to earn any capital gains either. The probability of a startup eventually going public is extremely small.. so in this scenario it is likely you will end up gaining no return investment (though you can be happy to know you helped a company grow!) Overall, the restrictions for these kinds of investments exist to protect ordinary folks from making investing their savings into things that could get them burned. If you want to invest in companies on FundersClub build a relationship with an RIA and work with that person to invest your money. It is easier, less risky, and not all that more expensive :)" }, { "docid": "430877", "title": "", "text": "Wow I love some of these answers. Remember why you are investing in the first place. For me I like Dividend stocks and Dividend Capturing. Here is why. With over 3500 dividend stock companies paying out dividends this year, that means I can get a dividend check almost every day. What about if the stock goes down you ask? Well out of these 3500 companies there is a small group of these stocks that have consistently increased their dividend payout to their investors for over 25 years and a smaller group that have been increasing every year their pay outs for over 50 years. Yes Kennedy was in office back then and to this day they consistently pay higher and higher dividend payments to their investors, every year... for 50 years. As for the Dividend Capturing strategy, that allows me to collect up 10-20 checks per month with that little effort. As for the stock going down... Here is a little tidbit that most buyers overlook. Stock price is more or less the public's perception of the value of a certain company. Earnings, balance sheet, cash flow, market cap and a few other things in the quarterly report will give you a better answer to the value of a company. If stock price goes down while earning and market go keep going up... what does that tell you?" }, { "docid": "451711", "title": "", "text": "\"> I'm not sure how to answer that. It's all just speculation. The competition is waiting for the first big mover to do just what TSLA is going.. being the first mover, then coming in and wiping the floor with them. It's very funny that you call an analysis of the *current* state of the industry speculation, and then go on to talk about something you think is going to happen...which, by the way, has had six years to happen and hasn't yet. Also, it's as if you don't think first mover advantage exists. Six years is a long time to build up a lead, especially in automotive, where product cycles and development times are so long. >If you want to argue that all of the last 30 years of free markets and the value of specialization is wrong, go ahead. Honestly, look up the words \"\"vertical integration\"\" before continuing the conversation. And the word \"\"Panasonic\"\" as well. >They are committing massive capital to old technology. That's a loser play, but it will help the industry as a whole and those that are going to come in with the next generation of batteries while TSLA is stuck with massive capital in lithium ion. But wait, I thought you said they were wrong because \"\"ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES\"\" aren't involved? And that ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES know better than them? But I guess the ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES don't actually know anything, and they should listen to an idiot on the internet who has so far proven himself to be wrong about everything he's said? >It seems Panasonic is not as optimistic about the plant as you are. Well, again, if you listened to the call, which is a pretty basic first step to talking about the quarterly results, which for some reason you insist on continuing to do despite being completely ignorant of them, then you might not be saying such stupid things. Panasonic, you see, is a rather conservative Japanese company. This is even mentioned in your article when they talk about plasma displays. This is why they are always measured in their public statements, because that's what Japanese companies do. But, as specified in the call, Panasonic's actions as a partner to Tesla have always been excellent. And if you actually bothered to read your own article, you would see that they've committed to 2 billion cells and 200-300 million for the factory. You know, an ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANY. And if you actually bothered to read any *other* article, you would see that that very same quote of yours was followed up with \"\"However, Tesla is a very important partner to us and discussions are continuing. We need to look very carefully at auto demand and respond appropriately so of course that means taking a step-by-step approach to investment.\"\" Also, there have been rumors of talks with LG and Samsung should Panasonic not decide to partner. I'm not sure I believe the rumors, and also I think they're unnecessary, because Panasonic will be a full partner in the gigafactory. They know that Tesla has been a huge source of profit for them, and their automotive supply (i.e. Tesla) has been one of the best-performing parts of their company for some time now. Mark my words, Panasonic's investment will end up being approximately $1 billion, all told. You can come back in a few years and check, if you like. >To keep the sucks putting up money. You mean, like an ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANY? The ones putting up the money? So, since your point was so reliant on ACTUAL BATTERY COMPANIES having expertise and specialization and so on, does that mean you're now dropping that point, because you realized your bullshit wouldn't fly, and moving on to another sort of bullshit until one of them sticks? Because if you'd like to fix your ignorance, I can help you with that. But if you wouldn't, as seems to be the case, it seems somewhat like a waste of time to continue trying to explain basic concepts to you.\"" }, { "docid": "86303", "title": "", "text": "What I don't understand is why buybacks aren't benefitting the pension fund. Does it hold nothing in GE stock? If so, that seems like the kind of crap that shouldn't happen. I am not a huge fan of pensions, but having zero of the pension liabilities being tied to the success of the company funding them really grinds my gears. The interests of all major stakeholders in companies need to be aligned to the extent possible. If everyone views it as a vehicle to screw everyone else with an interest, things will ultimately go badly. That's why a lot of tech companies tie comp to company performance. Pensions should be no different in having some skin in the game." }, { "docid": "428082", "title": "", "text": "Hah. So, public employees get less rights as employees than private ones? What about private employees of companies with public contracts? I'm guessing that you don't think private employees should have the right to bargain either. How is having collective bargaining rights holding the public hostage? Hyperbole much? We're bound by the same arbitrators. Cops and Firefighters can't strike." }, { "docid": "62808", "title": "", "text": "Snap relies on Google for computing, storage and other bandwidth needs. It signed the five-year agreement on Jan. 30, 2017, three days before it filed to go public. Other costs of revenue include payments to content partners, costs of creating content and inventory costs for Spectacles, the company’s camera-enable sunglasses. The company notes that costs related to Spectacles are expected to be higher than revenue from the product, at least for the near future. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-snapchat-is-losing-so-much-money-2017-02-08" }, { "docid": "548596", "title": "", "text": "For months prior to going public a company has to file financial documents with the SEC. These are available to the public at www.sec.gov on their Edgar database. For instance, Eagleline is listed as potentially IPOing next week. You can find out all the details of any IPO including correspondence between the company and the SEC on Edgar. Here's the link for Eagleline (disclaimer, I have not investigated this company. It is an example only) https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001675776&owner=exclude&count=40 The most important, complex, and thorough document is the initial registration statement, usually an S-1, and subsequent amendments that occur as a result of new information or SEC questions. You can often get insight into a new public company by looking at the changes that have occurred in amendments since their initial filings. I highly advise people starting out to first look at the filings of companies they work for or know the industry intimately. This will help you to better understand the filings from companies you may not be so familiar with. A word of caution. Markets and company filings are followed by very large numbers of smart people experienced in each business area so don't assume there is fast and easy money to be made. Still, you will be a bit ahead if you learn to read and understand the filings public companies are required to make." }, { "docid": "498752", "title": "", "text": "After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently." } ]

[ { "docid": "81106", "title": "", "text": "As AskAboutGadgets notes, there's no lower age limit. You current age (24) is a pretty good one; you'll have four decades or so for your money to grow and compound, allowing it to become a veritable fortune when you're ready to retire if you invest it fairly aggressively." } ]

[ { "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": "80844", "title": "", "text": "After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth." }, { "docid": "511228", "title": "", "text": "\"Unfortunately, the only thing you can say is \"\"Here have $1,200.\"\" You need to start living inside your means. If you are not making as much money as you once were, then you need to stop spending money. You should cancel your travel, and really look at your expenses to see what you can cut. You need to pay off the entire credit card then decide what you wan to do with it. You should never spend more on a credit card then you actually have in the bank. If you have a credit card with a $500 limit and $10 in the bank, feel free to spend $10, but under normal circumstances, you should not spend the other $490 as you do not actually have the money. I recommend using \"\"envelope budgeting\"\" like yNAB, to get your expenses back to an amount you can actually afford to pay, and to pay off this debt as fast as you can, even though it may mean ramen noodles for a while.\"" }, { "docid": "403024", "title": "", "text": "According to the link below, it does appear that you must take an RMD, or Required Minimum Distribution, from your IRA at age 70½, or face a 50% penalty of the RMD AMOUNT that has NOT been taken, which is going to be much less than 50% of your entire account balance. Why specifically this happens would be opinion based on my interpretation of the reasoning behind those that enacted the law. I can tell you penalties like this are used to encourage behavior - you can't just leave your money in a tax-free account forever. The IRA is meant to help you build your savings for retirement, and at age 70½ you should be ready for retirement. This means you must begin withdrawing the money - but that doesn't mean you have to spend it. In the link below, there are outlines on what you can do to satisfy the required minimum distribution. As it specifies, you can take one lump sum, or spread it out over multiple payments, and there's a calculator to identify what your RMD will be. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/withdrawals_and_distributions/age_70_and_a_half_and_over As noted in the linked page, you DO NOT have to take an RMD on a Roth IRA. If this is important to you, you may want to consider Rolling Over your current IRA to a Roth." }, { "docid": "272328", "title": "", "text": "It's never too early, but age 3 is when we started a piggy bank. Age 4 is when we opened a bank account. When you go shopping with your children, discuss what items cost (such as bread, milk, books, etc.) Start teaching them that everything has a value...then relate it to how much they have saved. Kids need to learn 3 basic things from their parents: how to save/invest, how to spend wisely, how to share/donate" }, { "docid": "106578", "title": "", "text": "I don't know what you mean by 'major'. Do you mean the fund company is a Fidelity or Vanguard, or that the fund is broad, as in an s&P fund? The problem starts with a question of what your goals are. If you already know the recommended mix for your age/risk, as you stated, you should consider minimizing the expenses, and staying DIY. I am further along, and with 12 year's income saved, a 1% hit would be 12% of a year's pay, I'd be working 1-1/2 months to pay the planner? In effect, you are betting that a planner will beat whatever metric you consider valid by at least that 1% fee, else you can just do it yourself and be that far ahead of the game. I've accepted the fact that I won't beat the average (as measured by the S&P) over time, but I'll beat the average investor. By staying in low cost funds (my 401(k) S&P fund charges .05% annual expense) I'll be ahead of the investors paying planner fees, and mutual fund fees on top of that. You don't need to be a CFP to manage your money, but it would help you understand the absurdity of the system." }, { "docid": "327240", "title": "", "text": "If you save money, invest in an education, start a business, refurbish your house, invest in technology by buying shares in a growing company, build something that can give you value long term, save money for your kids to inherit, postpone your spending, etc. it all accumulates and gives strong long term returns. These are the decisions we should encourage everyone to make, as it is these decisions that good countries are made from. You can rob the rich once, and then the richest and most productive people stop working and quickly all turns to shit, like every socialist experiment ever. I work hard and don't spend anything. At this rate I can likely retire in 10 years at 40 years old. Would be pretty pissed by then to have to share it with everyone who didn't work hard and didn't save and invest anything." }, { "docid": "109061", "title": "", "text": "In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before." }, { "docid": "509266", "title": "", "text": "I just graduated from college and I am already planning my retirement. ... in terms of money sitting in my bank account post retirement, assuming Ii have $250,000 what is the highest interest that I can earn with it? Assuming you are 22, and will retire in 45 years at age 67. There is no way to predict interest rates. When I was 22 and just out of college I started putting money into a bank account to save for a down payment. The rate for a savings account was 6%. That means that every month I made 1/2 of one percent. Today that same credit union offers a money maker account with a minimum balance of $100,000 that pays 0.25% for the year. What I made in a month would take two years to make today. Keep in mind we also can't estimate your pay in the last year before retirement, or the inflation rate for the next 45 years, or the mortgage rate, or the availability of Social Security, or the returns of the S&P for 45 years. It is great you are starting to think about this today. But you will have to keep adjusting parts of your plan as the years go by: You may have to factor in children, your medical situation... Even if the interest rates recover you may not want to put all your post retirement money in the bank. Most people can't sustain the required flow of money for their 30 years of retirement from savings accounts. As for today. FDIC (or similar accounts from credit unions) will not have rates approaching 3%. It can't even approach that 3% rate via multi-year CDs. My credit union has a 6 year CD for almost 2%. If the goal of the money is safety then don't expect to find those high rates now. Some institutions may offer high rates without that FDIC protection, but that is risky." }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" }, { "docid": "395499", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. The real question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Do I want to a) give my parents a $45,000 gift, b) make them $45,000 loan, or c) neither?\"\" The way you are talking in your question is as if you have the responsibility and authority to manage their lives. Whether they choose bankruptcy, and the associated stigma and/or negative self-image of financial or moral failure, or choose to muddle through and delay retirement to pay off their debt, is their question and their decision. Look, you said that loaning it to them was out, because you'd rather see them retire than continue to work. But what if they want to continue to work? For all the stress they're dealing with now, entrepreneurial people like that are not happy You're mucking about in their lives like you can run it. Stop it. You don't have the right; they're adults. There may come a time when they are too senile to be responsible for themselves, and then you can, and should, step up and take responsibility for them in their old age, just as they did for you when you were a child. But that time is not now. And by the way, from the information you've given, the answer should be C) neither. If giving or loaning them this kind of money taps you out, then you can't afford it.\"" }, { "docid": "545759", "title": "", "text": "There are lots of sub-parts to your question. Let's takle them one at a time. Should I worry about an IRA at this age? Absolutely! Or at least some form of retirement account. When you are young is the BEST time to start putting money into a retirement account because you have so much time for it to grow. Compounding interest is a magical thing. Even if you can only afford to put a very small amount in the account, do it! You will have to put a heck of a lot less money into the account over your working career if you start now. Is there a certain amount you need for the IRA deduction? No. Essentially with a traditional IRA you can just subtract the amount you deposited (up to the contribution limit) from your income when calculating your taxes. What kind of IRA should I get? I suggest a ROTH IRA, but be warned that with that kind you get the tax breaks when you retire, not now. If you think taxes will be higher in 40 years or so, then the Roth is a clear winner. Traditional IRA: Tax deduction this year for contribution; investment plus gains are taxed as income when you take the money out at retirement. Roth IRA: Investment amount is taxed in the year you put it in; no taxes on investment amount or gains when you take it out at retirement. Given the long horizon that you will be investing, the money is likely going to at least double. So the total amount you are taxed on over your lifetime would probably be less with the ROTH even if tax rates remain the same. Is the 401K a better option? If they offer a match (most do) then it is a no-brainer, the employer 401K always comes out on top because they are basically paying you extra to put money into savings. If there is no match, I suggest a Roth because company 401K plans usually have hidden fees that are much higher than you are going to pay for setting up your own IRA or Roth IRA with a broker." }, { "docid": "509608", "title": "", "text": "Since your child is 2, he has a long time horizon for investment. Assuming the savings will be used at age 19, that's 17 years. So, I think your best bet is to invest primarily in equities (i.e. stock-based funds) and inside an RESP. Why equities? Historically, equities have outperformed debt and cash over longer time periods. But, equities can be volatile in the short term. So, do purchase some fixed-income investments (e.g. 30% government bonds and money market funds), and do also spread your equity money around as well -- e.g. buy some international funds in addition to Canadian funds. Rebalance every year, and as your child gets closer to university age, start shifting some assets out of equities and into fixed-income, to reduce risk. You don't want the portfolio torpedoed by an economic crisis the year before the money is required! Next, why inside an RESP? Finally... what if your kid doesn't attend post-secondary education? First, you should probably get a Family RESP, not a Group RESP. Group RESPs have strict rules and may forfeit contributions if your kid doesn't attend. Have a look at Choosing the Right RESP and Canadian Capitalist's post The Pros and Cons of Group RESP Plans. In a Family plan, if none of your kids end up attending post-secondary education, then you forfeit the government match money -- the feds get it back through a 20% surtax on withdrawals. But, you'll have the option of rolling over remaining funds into your RRSP, if you have room." }, { "docid": "374266", "title": "", "text": "It's important to have both long term goals and milestones along the way. In an article I wrote about saving 15% of one's income, I offered the following table: This table shows savings starting at age 20 (young, I know, so shift 2 years out) and ending at 60 with 18-1/2 year's of income saved due to investment returns. The 18-1/2 results in 74% of one's income replaced at retirement if we follow the 4% rule. One can adjust this number, assuming Social Security will replace 30%, and that spending will go down in retirement, you might need to save less than this shows. What's important is that as a starting point, it shows 2X income saved by age 30. Perhaps 1X is more reasonable. You are at just over .5X and proposing to spend nearly half of that on a single purchase. Financial independence means to somehow create an income you can live on without the need to work. There are many ways to do it, but it usually starts with a high saving rate. Your numbers suggest a good income now, but maybe this is only recently, else you'd have over $200K in the bank. I suggest you read all you can about investments and the types of retirement accounts, including 401(k) (if you have that available to you), IRA, and Roth IRA. The details you offer don't allow me to get much more specific than this." }, { "docid": "223872", "title": "", "text": "Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day." }, { "docid": "515615", "title": "", "text": "If your credit card's interest rates are not more than your 35% (25% for your tax bracket and 10% penalty), there is no way I would consider this. If you boil it down to the numbers, you are asking whether you should borrow money at a 35% interest to pay off your credit cards. I would say Absolutely Not! $20K of auto loans which equal $1100 a month in payments. Also we purchased a car for me a year ago which is 375 a month. Probably shouldn't have done it but the car I was driving was on it's last leg. Where is the $805 difference going? You've got to make sacrifices, and right now you are leaning towards sacrificing your future for your present. It would take years of Large Contributions to make up for the money lost in early withdraw penalties and taxes, not to mention the loss in growth these accounts would have been earning if left alone. This plan is similar to saying you want to spend $60k to pay off $40k. Don't do it! If it was me, I'd get a couple $3,000 cars. That should free up at least $600 a month and reduces your debt by $14k. I'd also pull my child out of private school unless there is really no public option, which based upon your refusal to consider selling your house, I image there's a decent public school near your neighborhood. That's an extra $500 a month. Next, I'd sell anything that I could through craigslist or garage sales. I'd get on a written budget and the envelope system, to make sure you are really as 'tight' as you are presenting in your question. Hating Debt is a great motivator, but you shouldn't let it lead you to make even bigger financial mistakes. I think you started doing well and got promotions and did what almost everyone else does; you increased your standard of living. No matter what you choose to do, you will never build your retirement or have financial stability without living on a budget and spending less than you make. Maybe attacking this debt the old-fashioned way will give you the tools you need to gain financial stability long-term. Updated to address calculations Assuming 18% CC interest and 10% IRA Growth. And always spending at least $1500 on CC debt until it's gone, then $1,500 back into retirement after that. If you continued paying $1,500 a month the credit cards would take about 71 months to pay off. In that time, you'd spend a total of $106,500 on the debt. Your plan would spend $60k upfront to reduce the debt by $40k. The new balance of $25k would be paid off in 20 months and would cost $30k total. Total cost on your plan would be $90k. Your plan pays $16.5k less in total, and it would be 51 months quicker. However, you would have no retirement at age 40. If you then saved $1500 a month in retirement, you would catch up to the $70k loss in your IRA at age 49 (I'm including growth in both accounts to calculate this). If you had instead just left the IRA alone, you'd be done with the CCs at age 44. If after age 44, you put in $1500 month into retirement your plan would never catch up to this plan. It seems to me that cashing out your IRA is a 5 year detour." }, { "docid": "500986", "title": "", "text": "\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"" }, { "docid": "242310", "title": "", "text": "\"Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns. One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta. Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees. Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility. Its more important as to when the money is to be available. If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account. Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age. They are expected to have 50K per year expenses. If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be \"\"aggressive\"\" with any remaining money. On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years. Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative. Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments. As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place. Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice.\"" }, { "docid": "434972", "title": "", "text": "They start at six figures with just a bachelor's, and their raises tend to be pretty substantial. Many of them will earn more than $200k before they are age 30. Basically, if they were to live relatively normal lifestyles (many do not), save and invest most of their earnings, then they should be able to become a millionaire at around age 30 while just following their career path, without taking big risks such as starting a business." } ]

[ { "docid": "396127", "title": "", "text": "While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends." } ]

[ { "docid": "241161", "title": "", "text": "A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency." }, { "docid": "399543", "title": "", "text": "Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds." }, { "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": "59965", "title": "", "text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions." }, { "docid": "537982", "title": "", "text": "CFDs should not be used as a buy and hold strategy (which is risky enough doing with shares directly). However, with proper money and risk management and the proper use of stop losses, a medium term strategy is very plausible. I was using CFDs in the past over a short time period of usually between a couple of days to a couple is weeks, trying to catch small swings with very tight stops. I kept getting wipsawed due to my stops being too tight so had too many small loses for my few bigger wins. And yes I lost some money, almost $5k in one year. I have recently started a more medium term strategy with wider stops trying to catch trending stocks. I have only recently started this strategy and so far have 2 loses and 3 wins. Just remember that you do get charged a financing fee for holding long position overnight, buy for short position you actually get paid the funding fee for overnight positions. My broker charges the official interest rate + 2.5% for long positions and pays the official rate - 2.5% for short positions. So yes CFDs can be used for the longer term as long as you are implementing proper money and risk management and use stop losses. Just be aware of the implications of using margin and all the costs involved." }, { "docid": "168983", "title": "", "text": "\"The statement \"\"Finance is something all adults need to deal with but almost nobody learns in school.\"\" hurts me. However I have to disagree, as a finance student, I feel like everyone around me is sound in finance and competition in the finance market is so stiff that I have a hard time even finding a paid internship right now. I think its all about perspective from your circumstances, but back to the question. Personally, I feel that there is no one-size-fits-all financial planning rules. It is very subjective and is absolutely up to an individual regarding his financial goals. The number 1 rule I have of my own is - Do not ever spend what I do not have. Your reflected point is \"\"Always pay off your credit card at the end of each month.\"\", to which I ask, why not spend out of your savings? plan your grocery monies, necessary monthly expenditures, before spending on your \"\"wants\"\" should you have any leftovers. That way, you would not even have to pay credit every month because you don't owe any. Secondly, when you can get the above in check, then you start thinking about saving for the rainy days (i.e. Emergency fund). This is absolutely according to each individual's circumstance and could be regarded as say - 6 months * monthly income. Start saving a portion of your monthly income until you have set up a strong emergency fund you think you will require. After you have done than, and only after, should you start thinking about investments. Personally, health > wealth any time you ask. I always advise my friends/family to secure a minimum health insurance before venturing into investments for returns. You can choose not to and start investing straight away, but should any adverse health conditions hit you, all your returns would be wiped out into paying for treatments unless you are earning disgusting amounts in investment returns. This risk increases when you are handling the bills of your family. When you stick your money into an index ETF, the most powerful tool as a retail investor would be dollar-cost-averaging and I strongly recommend you read up on it. Also, because I am not from the western part of the world, I do not have the cultural mindset that I have to move out and get into a world of debt to live on my own when I reached 18. I have to say I could not be more glad that the culture does not exist in Asian countries. I find that there is absolutely nothing wrong with living with your parents and I still am at age 24. The pressure that culture puts on teenagers is uncalled for and there are no obvious benefits to it, only unmanageable mortgage/rent payments arise from it with the entry level pay that a normal 18 year old could get.\"" }, { "docid": "289450", "title": "", "text": "\"How much is rent in your area? You should compare a rental payment versus your mortgage payment now, bearing in mind the opportunity cost of the difference. Let's say that a rental unit in your area that has the same safety & convenience as your house costs $1600 per month to rent, and your mortgage is $2400. By staying in the house, you are losing that $800 month as well as interest earned on banking that money (however, right now, interest rates are negligible). Factor in total cost of ownership too, meaning extra utilities for one or the other (sometimes houses are cheaper, sometime not), property insurance and taxes for the house (if they aren't already in escrow through your mortgage) and generic house repair stuff. If the savings for a rental are worth more than a couple hundred a month, then I suggest you consider bailing. Start multiplying $500-1000 per month out over a year or two and decide if that extra cash is better for you than crappy credit. Also, this is not the most ethical thing, but I do know of one couple who stopped paying their mortgage for several months, knowing they were going to give the house back at the end. They took what they would have spent in mortgage payments during that time into a savings account, and will have more than enough cash to float for the few years that their credit is lowered by the default. Also something to consider is that we are in a time of ridiculous numbers of people defaulting. As such, a poor credit score might start to be more common among people with decent incomes, to the point where a \"\"poor\"\" score in 5 years is worth about the same as an \"\"average\"\" score today. I wouldn't count on that, but it might soften the blow of your bad credit if you default.\"" }, { "docid": "563284", "title": "", "text": "\"Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire. This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their \"\"nest egg\"\", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort. They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving.\"" }, { "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": "462036", "title": "", "text": "\"This may be a bit advanced now, but once you start really working and get a place, I think this will apply more... Do I set up a bank account now? Yes. There is no reason not to. As an adult you will be using this much more than you think. Assuming you have a little money, you can walk in to any bank almost any day of the week and set up an account with them in very little time. Note that they may require you to be 18 if your parents won't be with you on the account. Otherwise, just ask any bank representative to help you do this. Just to be clear, if you can get a credit union account over a typical bank account, this is a great idea. Credit unions provide exactly the same financial services as a normal bank, but typically have variety of advantages over banks. Bank Account Parts Bank accounts typically have two parts, a checking account and a savings account. Your checking account typically is what you use for most day-to-day transactions and your savings account is generally used for, well, saving money. Having a bank account often gives you the following advantages: They give you an ability to store money without having large amounts of cash on hand. Once you start working regularly, you'll find you won't want to keep ~$600+ cash every two weeks in your wallet or apartment. They help you pay bills. When you set up your bank account, you will likely be able to get a Visa debit card which will process like a regular credit card but simply deduct funds from your checking account. You can use this card online to pay utilities (i.e. electricity and water), general bills (e.g. your cell phone and cable), purchase items (ex. at Amazon) or use it in stores to pay in lieu of cash. Be aware -- some banks will give you an ATM-only card before they send you the Visa debit card in the mail. This ATM-only card can only be used at ATMs as it's name implies. Similarly, if you can invest about ~$200 to build your credit, you can often get a deposit secured credit card attached to your account (basically a credit card where the bank keeps your money in case you can't pay your bill). If you treat this card with responsibility, you can eventually transition to an unsecured credit card. They save you hassles when cashing your check. If you don't have a bank where you can cash your check (e.g. you don't have an account), you will likely be charged check cashing fees (usually by places such as grocery stores or payday loan chains, or even other banks). Furthermore, if your check is over a certain amount, some places may refuse to cash your check period and a bank may be your only option. They give you a way to receive money electronically. The most common example of this is direct deposit. Many employers will send your money directly to your bank account instead of requiring you to cash a check. If they are prompt, this money gets to you faster and saves you trouble (on payday, you'll just receive a pay stub detailing your wages and the amount deposited rather than a check). Also, since you asked about taxes, you should know that when you do eventually file with the IRS, they have an option to receive your tax refund electronically as well (e.g. direct deposit into your bank account) and that can literally save you months in some cases depending on when you file your return and how many paper checks they have to process. Does it cost money to setup? It depends. Some banks have special offers, some don't. Most places will set up an account for free, but may require a minimum deposit to open the account (typically $50-$100). The Visa debit card mentioned above generally comes free. If you want a secured credit card as above, you will want about an additional $200 (so $250 - $300 total). Note that this is absolutely NOT required. You can exclusively use the Visa debit card above if you wish. Bank Account Fees Any fees charged when you have a bank account are usually minor anymore. Regardless, the bank will hand you a whole bunch of paperwork (mostly in legalese) detailing exactly how your account works. That said, the bank person helping set things up will cover what you need to know about keeping the account in plain English. The most common types of fee associated with a bank account are monthly maintenance fees and overdraft fees, but these aren't always necessarily charged. Likewise, there may be some other fees associated with the account but these vary from bank to bank. Monthly Maintenance Fees To give some examples... Overdraft Fees Overdraft fees are typically charged when you attempt to spend more money than you have in your bank account and the bank has to cover these charges. Overdraft fees typically apply to using paper checks (which it is unlikely you will be using), but not always. That said, it is very unlikely you will be charged overdraft fees for three reasons: Many banks have done away with these fees in lieu of other ways of generating revenue. Banks that still charge these fees usually have \"\"overdraft protection\"\" options for a little more money a month, effectively negating the possibility you will be charged these fees. The ability to deduct an amount of money from your checking account is now typically checked electronically before the payment is authorized. That is, using a Visa debit card, the card balance is checked immediately, and even when using paper check, most retailers have check scanning machines that do roughly the same thing. On a personal note, the bank that I have allows my account to be deducted below my checking account balance only if the payment is requested electronically (e.g. someone who has my card information charges me for a monthly service). In this case, the funds are simply listed in the negative and deducted from any amount I deposit till the proper amount is repaid (e.g. if I'm at -$25 dollars due to a charge when my account balance was $0 and then I deposit $100, my available balance will then be $75, not $100). Finally, per the comment by @Thebluefish, while I minimize the likelihood you will be charged overdraft fees, it is good to check into the exact circumstances under which you might be charged unexpectedly by your bank. Read the documentation they give you carefully, including any mailed updates, and you'll reduce the chance of receiving a nasty surprise. For reference, here are some of the fees charged by Bank of America. What about taxes? When you begin working, an employer will usually have you fill out a tax form such as a W-4 Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate so that your employer can withhold the correct federal income tax from your wages. If they don't, then it is your responsibility to calculate and file your own income taxes (if you are self-employed, an independent contractor or paid under the table). If your employer is reputable, they will send you additional information (generally in February) you need to properly file your taxes prior to April 15th (the IRS tax deadline for most people). This additional information will likely be some variation of a W-2 Wage and Tax Statement or possibly a Form 1099-MISC. Do I have to worry about money in my bank account? Unless you have a significant amount in your bank savings account earning interest (see \"\"Should I save for the future?\"\" below), you won't have to pay any sort of tax on money in your bank account. If you do earn enough taxable interest, the bank will send you the proper forms to file your taxes. How do I file taxes? While it won't apply till next year, you will likely be able to fill out a Form 1040EZ Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents, as long as you don't have any kids in the meantime. ;-) You will either mail in the paper form (available at your local IRS office, post office, public library, etc.) or file electronically. There will be a lot of information on how to do this when the time comes, so don't worry about details just yet. Assuming your all paid up on your taxes (very likely unless you get a good paying job and take a lot of deductions throughout the year on your W-4), you'll probably get money back from the IRS when you file your tax return. As I mentioned above, if you have a bank account, you can opt to have your refund money returned electronically and get it much sooner than if you didn't have a bank account (again, possibly saving you literal months of waiting). Should I save for my future? If so, how much? Any good articles? Yes, you should save for the future, and start as soon as possible. It's outside the scope of this answer, but listen to your Economics professor talk about compound interest. In short, the later you start saving, the less money you have when you retire. Not that it makes much difference now, but you have to think that over 45 years of working (age 20-65), you likely have to have enough money for another 20+ years of not working (65-85+). So if you want $25,000 a year for retirement, you need to make ~$50,000 - $75,000 a year between your job and any financial instruments you have (savings account, stocks, bonds, CDs, mutual funds, IRAs, job retirement benefits, etc.) Where you should stick money your money is a complicated question which you can investigate at length as you get older. Personally, though, I would recommend some combination of IRA (Individual Retirement Account), long term mutual funds, and some sort of savings bonds. There is a metric ton of information regarding financial planning, but you can always read something like Investing For Dummies or you can try the Motley Fool's How To Invest (online and highly recommended). But I'm Only 17... So what should you do now? Budget. Sounds dumb, but just look at your basic expenses and total them all up (rent, utilities, phone, cable, food, gas, other costs) and divide by two. Out of each paycheck, this is how much money you need to save not to go into debt. Try to save a little each month. $50 - $100 a month is a good starting amount if you can swing it. You can always try to save more later. Invest early. You may not get great returns, but you don't need much money to start investing. Often you can get started with as little as $20 - $100. You'll have to do research but it is possible. Put money in your savings account. Checking accounts do not typically earn interest but money in savings accounts often do (that is, the bank will actually add money to your savings assuming you leave it in there long enough). Unfortunately, this rate of interest is only about 3.5% on average, which for most people means they don't get rich off it. You have to have a significant amount of money ($5,000+) to see even modest improvements in your savings account balance each month. But still, you may eventually get there. Get into the habit of putting money places that make you money in the long run. Don't go into debt. Don't get payday loans, pawn items, or abuse credit cards. Besides wrecking your credit, even a small amount of debt ($500+) can be very hard to break out of if you don't have a great paying job and can even make you homeless (no rent means no apartment). Remember, be financially responsible -- but assuming your parents aren't totally tight with money, don't be afraid to ask for cash when you really need it. This is a much better option than borrowing from some place that charges outrageous interest or making your payments late. Have an emergency account. As already mentioned in another excellent answer, you need to have money to \"\"smooth things out\"\" when you encounter unexpected events (your employer has trouble with your check, you have to pay for some sort of repair bill, you use more gas in your car in a month than normal, etc.) Anywhere from $200 - $2000+ should do it, but ideally you should have at least enough to cover a month of basic expenses. Build good credit. Avoid the temptation to get a lot of credit cards, even if stores and banks are dying to give them to you. You really only need one to build good credit (preferably a secured one from your bank, as mentioned above). Never charge more than you can pay off in a single month. Charging, then paying that amount off before the due date on your next statement, will help your credit immensely. Likewise, pay attention to your rent, utilities and monthly services (cell phone, cable, etc.). Even though these seem like options you can put off (\"\"Oh my electric bill is only $40? I'll pay that next month...\"\") late payments on all of these can negatively affect your credit score, which you will need later to get good loans and buy a house. Get health insurance. Now that the Affordable Care Act (ACA a.k.a Obamacare) has been enacted, it is now simpler to get health insurance, and it is actually required you have some. Hopefully, your employer will offer health coverage, you can find reasonably priced coverage on your own, or you live in a state with a health exchange. Even if you can't otherwise get/afford insurance, you may qualify for some sort of state coverage depending on income. If you don't have some sort of health insurance (private or otherwise), the IRS can potentially fine you when you file your taxes. Not to be too scary, but the fine as currently proposed is jumping up to about $700 for individuals in 2016 or so. So... even if you don't grab health insurance (which you absolutely should), you need to save about $60 a month, even if just for the fine. This answer turned out a bit longer than intended, but hopefully it will help you a little bit. Welcome to the wonderful world of adult financial responsibility. :-)\"" }, { "docid": "315741", "title": "", "text": "It's not so much pros and cons as much as it is what are your savings goals? While it's best to start early to save money for retirement, you may have numerous short- to medium-term savings goals (school, down payment, etc). Here's a template you can consider. I would suggest that you open up an RRSP mutual fund or brokerage account and invest a certain amount that you feel free locking up for the next few decades and investing it in some sort of growth product (perhaps look at portfolios using the Couch Potato strategy). Then, also open up a TFSA mutual fund or brokerage account and use it to invest for medium-term goals (i.e. 5-10 years). Invest in products that will allow for some growth but with low chance of losing principle in that time frame. What I wouldn't do is open up a TFSA savings account and use it for day-to-day savings. The tax you save is negligible and you would need to keep track of deposits and withdrawals to ensure that you don't overcontribute for the tax year. Similarly, an RRSP savings account or GIC is far too conservative at your age, IMHO. Think of RRSP and TFSA as investment vehicles rather than accounts per se. Either type allows for you to invest in a vast array of products, including mutual funds, equities, some derivatives, gold, bonds, GICs, etc. To conclude, my view is to use RRSP to invest for conventional retirement goals, and use the TFSA to invest for medium-term and early retirement goals." }, { "docid": "327240", "title": "", "text": "If you save money, invest in an education, start a business, refurbish your house, invest in technology by buying shares in a growing company, build something that can give you value long term, save money for your kids to inherit, postpone your spending, etc. it all accumulates and gives strong long term returns. These are the decisions we should encourage everyone to make, as it is these decisions that good countries are made from. You can rob the rich once, and then the richest and most productive people stop working and quickly all turns to shit, like every socialist experiment ever. I work hard and don't spend anything. At this rate I can likely retire in 10 years at 40 years old. Would be pretty pissed by then to have to share it with everyone who didn't work hard and didn't save and invest anything." }, { "docid": "5673", "title": "", "text": "\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"" }, { "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": "455851", "title": "", "text": "If you buy a new car, the odds that it will require repairs are fairly low, and if it does, they should be covered by the warranty. If you buy a used car, there is a fair chance that it will need some sort of repairs, and there probably is no warranty. But think about how much repairs are likely to cost. A new car these days costs like $25,000 or more. You can find reasonably decent used cars for a few thousand dollars. Say you bought a used car for $2,000. Is it likely that it will need $23,000 in repairs? No way. Even if you had to make thousands of dollars worth of repairs to the used car, it would almost certainly be cheaper than buying a new car. I've bought three used vehicles in the last few years, one for me, one for my son, and one for my daughter. I paid, let's see, I think between $4,000 and $6,000 each. We've had my son's car for about 9 months and to date had $40 in repairs. My daughter's car turned out to have a bunch of problems; I ended up putting maybe another $2,000 into it. But now she's got a car she's very happy with that cost me maybe $6,000 between purchase and repairs, still way less than a new car. My pickup had big time problems, including needing a new transmission and a new engine. I've put, hmm, maybe $7,000 into it. It's definitely debatable if it was worth replacing the engine. But even at all that, if I had bought that truck new it would have cost over $30,000. Presumably if I bought new I would have had a nicer vehicle and I could have gotten exactly the options I wanted, so I'm not entirely happy with how this one turned out, but I still saved money by buying used. Here's what I do when I buy a used car: I go into it expecting that there will be repairs. Depending on the age and condition of the car, I plan on about $1000 within the first few months, probably another $1000 stretched out over the next year or so. I plan for this both financially and emotionally. By financially I mean that I have money set aside for repairs or have available credit or one way or another have planned for it in my budget. By emotionally I mean, I have told myself that I expect there to be problems, so I don't get all upset when there are and start screaming and crying about how I was ripped off. When you buy a used car, take it for granted that there will be problems, but you're still saving money over buying new. Sure, it's painful when the repair bills hit. But if you buy a new car, you'll have a monthly loan payment EVERY MONTH. Oh, and if you have a little mechanical aptitude and can do at least some of the maintenance yourself, the savings are bigger. Bear in mind that while you are saving money, you are paying for it in uncertainty and aggravation. With a new car, you can be reasonably confidant that it will indeed start and get you to work each day. With a used car, there's a much bigger chance that it won't start or will leave you stranded. $2,000 is definitely the low end, and you say that that would leave you no reserve for repairs. I don't know where you live or what used cars prices are like in your area. Where I live, in Michigan, you can get a pretty decent used car for about $5,000. If I were you I'd at least look into whether I could get a loan for $4,000 or $5,000 to maybe get a better used car. Of course that all depends on how much money you will be making and what your other expenses are. When you're a little richer and better established, then if a shiny new car is important to you, you can do that. Me, I'm 56 years old, I've bought new cars and I've bought used cars and I've concluded that having a fancy new car just isn't something that I care about, so these days I buy used." }, { "docid": "350547", "title": "", "text": "\"Good debt is very close to an oxymoron. People say student loans are \"\"good debt,\"\" but I beg to differ. The very same \"\"good debt\"\" that allowed me to get an education is the very same \"\"bad debt\"\" that doesn't allow me to take chances in my career - meaning, I would prefer to have a 'steady' job over starting a business. (That's my perogative, of course, but I am not willing to take that 'risk.' /endtangent @Harmanjd provided the two really good reason for using cash over borrowing. We have a tendency in this culture to find reasons to borrow. It is better for you to make a budget, based on what you want, and save up for it. Make a \"\"dream list\"\" for what you want, then add up the costs for everything. If that number makes your head hurt, start paring down on things you 'want.' Maybe you install just a wine cooler instead of a wine cooler and a beer tap, or vice-versa. And besides, if something comes up - you can always stop saving money for this project and deal with whatever came up and then resume saving when you're done. Or in the case of the kitchen, maybe you do it in stages: cabinets one year, countertops the next, flooring the year after that, and then the appliances last. You don't have to do it all at once. As someone who is working toward debt freedom, it feels nice whenever we have one less payment to budget for every month. Don't burden yourself to impress other people. Take your time, get bids for the things you can't (or won't) do yourself, and then make a decision that's best for your money.\"" }, { "docid": "56610", "title": "", "text": "If it turns out that you do want to help pay the tax bill (after answering all the questions above), I say cash out those funds. You are apparently very young with a long work life ahead (lucky you). Step aside from the actual money part of it for a moment. What does your Mom want? What do you really want to do about this? Is it from love that you want to help but are afraid it's a bad financial decision? Or is it from a feeling of duty and you deep down don't really want to spend your savings on Mom's tax bill. - If you really do want to help and you have the wherewithall to do so, then do it. Otherwise don't. You can recover financially. - I myself have had my retirement savings go to nearly zero 3 times. The first time I recovered pretty easily. The second time, not so easily. I'm just starting on the recovery path for the 3rd time at age 58 and I highly doubt I ever will recover this time. I didn't cash out on purpose but the stock market was not friendly. - My main point is to figure out truly what you want." }, { "docid": "357242", "title": "", "text": "Your 5-8 year time frame is interesting because it is actually a two windows. When people are savings for retirement, they tell us how many years or decades they have until they reach retirement age. But they also imply that they are planning on spending decades withdrawing the money. But you wanting the money for a house in 5-8 years are needing the money more like somebody who is saving college money for a teenager. In fact your plan is similar in time frame as a 13 year old has for their college fund; start in 5 years but only have a 4 year spending window. Take the California 529 program: Beneficiary Age 13-14: Beneficiary Age 18+: The funding agreement provides a minimum guaranteed rate of return on the >amounts allocated to it by the Investment Portfolio. The minimum effective >annual interest rate will be neither less than 1% nor greater than 3% at >any time. So you plan of investing 100% in the S&P with your window is way too risky. You should only invest a portion of your down payment in equities, and be prepared to only be in that mode for a few years. Any drop in the market now hurts you, but one just before you need the funds would be devastating." }, { "docid": "332938", "title": "", "text": "\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "553288", "title": "", "text": "Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal." } ]

[ { "docid": "434972", "title": "", "text": "They start at six figures with just a bachelor's, and their raises tend to be pretty substantial. Many of them will earn more than $200k before they are age 30. Basically, if they were to live relatively normal lifestyles (many do not), save and invest most of their earnings, then they should be able to become a millionaire at around age 30 while just following their career path, without taking big risks such as starting a business." }, { "docid": "242310", "title": "", "text": "\"Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns. One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta. Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees. Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility. Its more important as to when the money is to be available. If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account. Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age. They are expected to have 50K per year expenses. If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be \"\"aggressive\"\" with any remaining money. On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years. Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative. Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments. As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place. Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice.\"" }, { "docid": "537982", "title": "", "text": "CFDs should not be used as a buy and hold strategy (which is risky enough doing with shares directly). However, with proper money and risk management and the proper use of stop losses, a medium term strategy is very plausible. I was using CFDs in the past over a short time period of usually between a couple of days to a couple is weeks, trying to catch small swings with very tight stops. I kept getting wipsawed due to my stops being too tight so had too many small loses for my few bigger wins. And yes I lost some money, almost $5k in one year. I have recently started a more medium term strategy with wider stops trying to catch trending stocks. I have only recently started this strategy and so far have 2 loses and 3 wins. Just remember that you do get charged a financing fee for holding long position overnight, buy for short position you actually get paid the funding fee for overnight positions. My broker charges the official interest rate + 2.5% for long positions and pays the official rate - 2.5% for short positions. So yes CFDs can be used for the longer term as long as you are implementing proper money and risk management and use stop losses. Just be aware of the implications of using margin and all the costs involved." }, { "docid": "56610", "title": "", "text": "If it turns out that you do want to help pay the tax bill (after answering all the questions above), I say cash out those funds. You are apparently very young with a long work life ahead (lucky you). Step aside from the actual money part of it for a moment. What does your Mom want? What do you really want to do about this? Is it from love that you want to help but are afraid it's a bad financial decision? Or is it from a feeling of duty and you deep down don't really want to spend your savings on Mom's tax bill. - If you really do want to help and you have the wherewithall to do so, then do it. Otherwise don't. You can recover financially. - I myself have had my retirement savings go to nearly zero 3 times. The first time I recovered pretty easily. The second time, not so easily. I'm just starting on the recovery path for the 3rd time at age 58 and I highly doubt I ever will recover this time. I didn't cash out on purpose but the stock market was not friendly. - My main point is to figure out truly what you want." }, { "docid": "597595", "title": "", "text": "\"**Q: \"\"Why aren't you giving your grandmother children before she dies?\"\"** A: Stop being selfish, it's my life and I decide what I want to do, whenever I want to. **Q: \"\"I bought a house at 23. Why are you still renting?\"\"** A: I want to be very wealthy, and not have my own house owned by a bank for 3/4ths of my life. Worry about your own life. **Q: \"\"Who is going to take care of your parents when we they get old?\"\"** A: I'm going to be doing that, and my parent's retirement will help. I'm going to be able to do that because I decided to be financially intelligent rather than indulge in selfish personal pride and temporary happiness. **Q: \"\"If you don't have X by age Y, then there's something wrong with you\"\"** A: Fuck you, I'm rich. Have fun with your wife and kids while you slave away hoping for a raise someday and pray for the weekends to come. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I've used all of these except the parents getting old situation. Stop letting other people dictate what's important in your life. If your parents are mad that you won't have kids or get married, fuck them. You got a nice loft, an AMG Mercedes, a Lexus, saving for a Lamborghini, and enough money in the bank to make people feel inferior just by looking at your account balance. Not to mention that's it's completely possible to have casual, safe sex with many women nowadays. But hey man, make your family happy and appease society. Lol, hope it works out for you.\"" }, { "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": "40821", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest \"\"check cashing\"\", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or \"\"get ahead\"\", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too.\"" }, { "docid": "88942", "title": "", "text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\"" }, { "docid": "223872", "title": "", "text": "Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day." }, { "docid": "515615", "title": "", "text": "If your credit card's interest rates are not more than your 35% (25% for your tax bracket and 10% penalty), there is no way I would consider this. If you boil it down to the numbers, you are asking whether you should borrow money at a 35% interest to pay off your credit cards. I would say Absolutely Not! $20K of auto loans which equal $1100 a month in payments. Also we purchased a car for me a year ago which is 375 a month. Probably shouldn't have done it but the car I was driving was on it's last leg. Where is the $805 difference going? You've got to make sacrifices, and right now you are leaning towards sacrificing your future for your present. It would take years of Large Contributions to make up for the money lost in early withdraw penalties and taxes, not to mention the loss in growth these accounts would have been earning if left alone. This plan is similar to saying you want to spend $60k to pay off $40k. Don't do it! If it was me, I'd get a couple $3,000 cars. That should free up at least $600 a month and reduces your debt by $14k. I'd also pull my child out of private school unless there is really no public option, which based upon your refusal to consider selling your house, I image there's a decent public school near your neighborhood. That's an extra $500 a month. Next, I'd sell anything that I could through craigslist or garage sales. I'd get on a written budget and the envelope system, to make sure you are really as 'tight' as you are presenting in your question. Hating Debt is a great motivator, but you shouldn't let it lead you to make even bigger financial mistakes. I think you started doing well and got promotions and did what almost everyone else does; you increased your standard of living. No matter what you choose to do, you will never build your retirement or have financial stability without living on a budget and spending less than you make. Maybe attacking this debt the old-fashioned way will give you the tools you need to gain financial stability long-term. Updated to address calculations Assuming 18% CC interest and 10% IRA Growth. And always spending at least $1500 on CC debt until it's gone, then $1,500 back into retirement after that. If you continued paying $1,500 a month the credit cards would take about 71 months to pay off. In that time, you'd spend a total of $106,500 on the debt. Your plan would spend $60k upfront to reduce the debt by $40k. The new balance of $25k would be paid off in 20 months and would cost $30k total. Total cost on your plan would be $90k. Your plan pays $16.5k less in total, and it would be 51 months quicker. However, you would have no retirement at age 40. If you then saved $1500 a month in retirement, you would catch up to the $70k loss in your IRA at age 49 (I'm including growth in both accounts to calculate this). If you had instead just left the IRA alone, you'd be done with the CCs at age 44. If after age 44, you put in $1500 month into retirement your plan would never catch up to this plan. It seems to me that cashing out your IRA is a 5 year detour." }, { "docid": "168983", "title": "", "text": "\"The statement \"\"Finance is something all adults need to deal with but almost nobody learns in school.\"\" hurts me. However I have to disagree, as a finance student, I feel like everyone around me is sound in finance and competition in the finance market is so stiff that I have a hard time even finding a paid internship right now. I think its all about perspective from your circumstances, but back to the question. Personally, I feel that there is no one-size-fits-all financial planning rules. It is very subjective and is absolutely up to an individual regarding his financial goals. The number 1 rule I have of my own is - Do not ever spend what I do not have. Your reflected point is \"\"Always pay off your credit card at the end of each month.\"\", to which I ask, why not spend out of your savings? plan your grocery monies, necessary monthly expenditures, before spending on your \"\"wants\"\" should you have any leftovers. That way, you would not even have to pay credit every month because you don't owe any. Secondly, when you can get the above in check, then you start thinking about saving for the rainy days (i.e. Emergency fund). This is absolutely according to each individual's circumstance and could be regarded as say - 6 months * monthly income. Start saving a portion of your monthly income until you have set up a strong emergency fund you think you will require. After you have done than, and only after, should you start thinking about investments. Personally, health > wealth any time you ask. I always advise my friends/family to secure a minimum health insurance before venturing into investments for returns. You can choose not to and start investing straight away, but should any adverse health conditions hit you, all your returns would be wiped out into paying for treatments unless you are earning disgusting amounts in investment returns. This risk increases when you are handling the bills of your family. When you stick your money into an index ETF, the most powerful tool as a retail investor would be dollar-cost-averaging and I strongly recommend you read up on it. Also, because I am not from the western part of the world, I do not have the cultural mindset that I have to move out and get into a world of debt to live on my own when I reached 18. I have to say I could not be more glad that the culture does not exist in Asian countries. I find that there is absolutely nothing wrong with living with your parents and I still am at age 24. The pressure that culture puts on teenagers is uncalled for and there are no obvious benefits to it, only unmanageable mortgage/rent payments arise from it with the entry level pay that a normal 18 year old could get.\"" }, { "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": "80844", "title": "", "text": "After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth." }, { "docid": "115802", "title": "", "text": "here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend." }, { "docid": "48226", "title": "", "text": "\"As some of the other answers pointed out, company 401(k) accounts can sometimes have poor investment choices so if the company isn't doing some sort of matching and you only have a limited set of options, I would likely recommend that you roll the money over to a different 401(k) account so you have better investment options. Why choice from tens of funds when you may have the full market worth of options as your disposal? Likewise, if you have electronic deposit you might be able to have the 10% automatically deposited to that account out of your paycheck so you will still be getting the advantage of having \"\"forced savings\"\" from a young age. In regards to a Roth IRA, as others have pointed out, they are a bit of a gamble and you can't ensure that you will come out ahead at the end of the day in regards to taxes; however, you also need to take your own career goals into account when you make that decision. If you see yourself getting up there in the income bracket of the course of your career it doesn't hurt to have a Roth IRA now and start putting some money in it (limited amount though, maybe only $100 a month) but if you don't see yourself getting up that high in the income brackets then it might not be worth the overhead of having multiple accounts to keep track of. That said though, make sure that you aren't just saving for retirement, you should have another savings account that you are putting money away for rainy days, houses, and the like.\"" }, { "docid": "536374", "title": "", "text": "\"Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and Am I correctly understanding this as \"\"anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax\"\"? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then:\"" }, { "docid": "272328", "title": "", "text": "It's never too early, but age 3 is when we started a piggy bank. Age 4 is when we opened a bank account. When you go shopping with your children, discuss what items cost (such as bread, milk, books, etc.) Start teaching them that everything has a value...then relate it to how much they have saved. Kids need to learn 3 basic things from their parents: how to save/invest, how to spend wisely, how to share/donate" }, { "docid": "172778", "title": "", "text": "The amount of money you have should be enough for you to live a safe but somewhat restricted life if you never worked again - but it could set you up for just about any sort of financial goal (short of island buying) if you do just about any amount of work. The basic math for some financial rules of thumb to keep in mind: If your money is invested in very low-risk ways, such as a money market fund, you might earn, say, 3% in interest every year. That's $36k. But, if you withdraw that $36k every year, then every year you have the same principal amount invested. And a dollar tomorrow can't buy as much as a dollar today, because of inflation. If we assume for simplicity that inflation is 1% every year, then you need to contribute an additional $12k to your principal balance every year, just so that it has the same buying power next year. This leaves you with a net $24k of interest income that you can freely spend every year, for the rest of your life, without ever touching your principal balance. If your money is invested more broadly, including equity investments [stocks], you might earn, say, 7% every year. Some years you might lose money on your investments, and would need to draw down your principal balance to pay your bills. Some years you might do quite well - but would need to remain conservative and not withdraw your 'excess' earnings every year, because you will need that 'excess' to make up for the bad years. This would leave you with about $74k of income every year before inflation, and about $62k after inflation. But, you would be taking on more risk by doing this. If you work enough to pay your daily bills, and leave your investments alone to earn 7% on average annually, then in just 10 years your money would have doubled to ~ $2.4 Million dollars. This assumes that you never save another penny, and spend everything you make. It's a level of financial security that means you could retire at a drop of the hat. And if don't start working for 20 years [which you might need to do if you spend in excess of your means and your money dries up], then the same will not be true - starting work at 45 with no savings would put you at a much greater disadvantage for financial security. Every year that you work enough to pay your bills before 'retirement' could increase your nest egg by 7% [though again, there is risk here], but only if you do it now, while you have a nest egg to invest. Now in terms of what you should do with that money, you need to ask yourself: what are your financial goals? You should think about this long and hard (and renew that discussion with yourself periodically, as your goals will change over time). You say university isn't an option - but what other ways might you want to 'invest in yourself'? Would you want to go on 'sabbatical'-type learning trips? Take a trade or learn a skill? Start a business? Do you want to live in the same place for 30 years [and thus maybe you should lock-down your housing costs by buying a house] or do you want to travel around the world, never staying in the same place twice [in which case you will need to figure out how to live cheaply and flexibly, without signing unnecessary leases]. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere eating ramen noodles and watching tv, you could do that without lifting a finger ever again. But every other financial goal you might have should be factored into your budget and work plan. And because you do have such a large degree of financial security, you have a lot of options that could be very appealing - every low paying but desirable/hard-to-get job is open to you. You can pursue your interests, even if they barely pay minimum wage, and doing so may help you ease into your new life easier than simply retiring at such a young age [when most of your peers will be heavy into their careers]. So, that is my strongest piece of advice - work now, while you're young and have motivation, so that you can dial back later. This will be much easier than the other way around. As for where you should invest your money in, look on this site for investing questions, and ultimately with that amount of money - I suggest you hire a paid advisor, who works based on an hourly consultation fee, rather than a % management fee. They can give you much more directed advice than the internet (though you should learn it yourself as well, because that will give you the best piece of mind that you aren't being taken advantage of)." }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "551954", "title": "", "text": "There is no age-limit, in fact the sooner you start the better - the sooner the money starts to compound." } ]

[ { "docid": "509266", "title": "", "text": "I just graduated from college and I am already planning my retirement. ... in terms of money sitting in my bank account post retirement, assuming Ii have $250,000 what is the highest interest that I can earn with it? Assuming you are 22, and will retire in 45 years at age 67. There is no way to predict interest rates. When I was 22 and just out of college I started putting money into a bank account to save for a down payment. The rate for a savings account was 6%. That means that every month I made 1/2 of one percent. Today that same credit union offers a money maker account with a minimum balance of $100,000 that pays 0.25% for the year. What I made in a month would take two years to make today. Keep in mind we also can't estimate your pay in the last year before retirement, or the inflation rate for the next 45 years, or the mortgage rate, or the availability of Social Security, or the returns of the S&P for 45 years. It is great you are starting to think about this today. But you will have to keep adjusting parts of your plan as the years go by: You may have to factor in children, your medical situation... Even if the interest rates recover you may not want to put all your post retirement money in the bank. Most people can't sustain the required flow of money for their 30 years of retirement from savings accounts. As for today. FDIC (or similar accounts from credit unions) will not have rates approaching 3%. It can't even approach that 3% rate via multi-year CDs. My credit union has a 6 year CD for almost 2%. If the goal of the money is safety then don't expect to find those high rates now. Some institutions may offer high rates without that FDIC protection, but that is risky." }, { "docid": "357242", "title": "", "text": "Your 5-8 year time frame is interesting because it is actually a two windows. When people are savings for retirement, they tell us how many years or decades they have until they reach retirement age. But they also imply that they are planning on spending decades withdrawing the money. But you wanting the money for a house in 5-8 years are needing the money more like somebody who is saving college money for a teenager. In fact your plan is similar in time frame as a 13 year old has for their college fund; start in 5 years but only have a 4 year spending window. Take the California 529 program: Beneficiary Age 13-14: Beneficiary Age 18+: The funding agreement provides a minimum guaranteed rate of return on the >amounts allocated to it by the Investment Portfolio. The minimum effective >annual interest rate will be neither less than 1% nor greater than 3% at >any time. So you plan of investing 100% in the S&P with your window is way too risky. You should only invest a portion of your down payment in equities, and be prepared to only be in that mode for a few years. Any drop in the market now hurts you, but one just before you need the funds would be devastating." }, { "docid": "586272", "title": "", "text": "\"The real question is what can you NOT do! If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation. That means you have the tools to ask and answer \"\"what if\"\" questions, such as: \"\"If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?\"\" You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. \"\"How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?\"\" This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing. If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. \"\"If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?\"\" You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass. By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. \"\"If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?\"\" Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like \"\"Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?\"\" These are just a few random examples. The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask \"\"how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?\"\" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much \"\"what\"\" you can do, but \"\"how\"\" exactly to do it. You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions. Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet.\"" }, { "docid": "500986", "title": "", "text": "\"This is always a judgement call based on your own tolerance for risk. Yes, you have a fairly long time horizon and that does mean you can accept more risk/more volatility than someone closer to starting to draw upon those savings, but you're old enough and have enough existing savings that you want to start thinking about reducing the risk a notch. So most folks in your position would not put 100% in stocks, though exactly how much should be moved to bonds is debatable. One traditional rule of thumb for a moderately conservative position is to subtract your age from 100 and keep that percentage of your investments in stock. Websearch for \"\"stock bond age\"\" will find lots of debate about whether and how to modify this rule. I have gone more aggressive myself, and haven't demonstrably hurt myself, but \"\"past results are no guarantee of future performance\"\". A paid financial planning advisor can interview you about your risk tolerance, run some computer models, and recommend a strategy, with some estimate of expected performance and volatility. If you are looking for a semi-rational approach, that may be worth considering, at least as a starting point.\"" }, { "docid": "337561", "title": "", "text": "\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"" }, { "docid": "326560", "title": "", "text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?" }, { "docid": "536374", "title": "", "text": "\"Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and Am I correctly understanding this as \"\"anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax\"\"? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then:\"" }, { "docid": "327240", "title": "", "text": "If you save money, invest in an education, start a business, refurbish your house, invest in technology by buying shares in a growing company, build something that can give you value long term, save money for your kids to inherit, postpone your spending, etc. it all accumulates and gives strong long term returns. These are the decisions we should encourage everyone to make, as it is these decisions that good countries are made from. You can rob the rich once, and then the richest and most productive people stop working and quickly all turns to shit, like every socialist experiment ever. I work hard and don't spend anything. At this rate I can likely retire in 10 years at 40 years old. Would be pretty pissed by then to have to share it with everyone who didn't work hard and didn't save and invest anything." }, { "docid": "59965", "title": "", "text": "The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions." }, { "docid": "403024", "title": "", "text": "According to the link below, it does appear that you must take an RMD, or Required Minimum Distribution, from your IRA at age 70½, or face a 50% penalty of the RMD AMOUNT that has NOT been taken, which is going to be much less than 50% of your entire account balance. Why specifically this happens would be opinion based on my interpretation of the reasoning behind those that enacted the law. I can tell you penalties like this are used to encourage behavior - you can't just leave your money in a tax-free account forever. The IRA is meant to help you build your savings for retirement, and at age 70½ you should be ready for retirement. This means you must begin withdrawing the money - but that doesn't mean you have to spend it. In the link below, there are outlines on what you can do to satisfy the required minimum distribution. As it specifies, you can take one lump sum, or spread it out over multiple payments, and there's a calculator to identify what your RMD will be. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/withdrawals_and_distributions/age_70_and_a_half_and_over As noted in the linked page, you DO NOT have to take an RMD on a Roth IRA. If this is important to you, you may want to consider Rolling Over your current IRA to a Roth." }, { "docid": "462036", "title": "", "text": "\"This may be a bit advanced now, but once you start really working and get a place, I think this will apply more... Do I set up a bank account now? Yes. There is no reason not to. As an adult you will be using this much more than you think. Assuming you have a little money, you can walk in to any bank almost any day of the week and set up an account with them in very little time. Note that they may require you to be 18 if your parents won't be with you on the account. Otherwise, just ask any bank representative to help you do this. Just to be clear, if you can get a credit union account over a typical bank account, this is a great idea. Credit unions provide exactly the same financial services as a normal bank, but typically have variety of advantages over banks. Bank Account Parts Bank accounts typically have two parts, a checking account and a savings account. Your checking account typically is what you use for most day-to-day transactions and your savings account is generally used for, well, saving money. Having a bank account often gives you the following advantages: They give you an ability to store money without having large amounts of cash on hand. Once you start working regularly, you'll find you won't want to keep ~$600+ cash every two weeks in your wallet or apartment. They help you pay bills. When you set up your bank account, you will likely be able to get a Visa debit card which will process like a regular credit card but simply deduct funds from your checking account. You can use this card online to pay utilities (i.e. electricity and water), general bills (e.g. your cell phone and cable), purchase items (ex. at Amazon) or use it in stores to pay in lieu of cash. Be aware -- some banks will give you an ATM-only card before they send you the Visa debit card in the mail. This ATM-only card can only be used at ATMs as it's name implies. Similarly, if you can invest about ~$200 to build your credit, you can often get a deposit secured credit card attached to your account (basically a credit card where the bank keeps your money in case you can't pay your bill). If you treat this card with responsibility, you can eventually transition to an unsecured credit card. They save you hassles when cashing your check. If you don't have a bank where you can cash your check (e.g. you don't have an account), you will likely be charged check cashing fees (usually by places such as grocery stores or payday loan chains, or even other banks). Furthermore, if your check is over a certain amount, some places may refuse to cash your check period and a bank may be your only option. They give you a way to receive money electronically. The most common example of this is direct deposit. Many employers will send your money directly to your bank account instead of requiring you to cash a check. If they are prompt, this money gets to you faster and saves you trouble (on payday, you'll just receive a pay stub detailing your wages and the amount deposited rather than a check). Also, since you asked about taxes, you should know that when you do eventually file with the IRS, they have an option to receive your tax refund electronically as well (e.g. direct deposit into your bank account) and that can literally save you months in some cases depending on when you file your return and how many paper checks they have to process. Does it cost money to setup? It depends. Some banks have special offers, some don't. Most places will set up an account for free, but may require a minimum deposit to open the account (typically $50-$100). The Visa debit card mentioned above generally comes free. If you want a secured credit card as above, you will want about an additional $200 (so $250 - $300 total). Note that this is absolutely NOT required. You can exclusively use the Visa debit card above if you wish. Bank Account Fees Any fees charged when you have a bank account are usually minor anymore. Regardless, the bank will hand you a whole bunch of paperwork (mostly in legalese) detailing exactly how your account works. That said, the bank person helping set things up will cover what you need to know about keeping the account in plain English. The most common types of fee associated with a bank account are monthly maintenance fees and overdraft fees, but these aren't always necessarily charged. Likewise, there may be some other fees associated with the account but these vary from bank to bank. Monthly Maintenance Fees To give some examples... Overdraft Fees Overdraft fees are typically charged when you attempt to spend more money than you have in your bank account and the bank has to cover these charges. Overdraft fees typically apply to using paper checks (which it is unlikely you will be using), but not always. That said, it is very unlikely you will be charged overdraft fees for three reasons: Many banks have done away with these fees in lieu of other ways of generating revenue. Banks that still charge these fees usually have \"\"overdraft protection\"\" options for a little more money a month, effectively negating the possibility you will be charged these fees. The ability to deduct an amount of money from your checking account is now typically checked electronically before the payment is authorized. That is, using a Visa debit card, the card balance is checked immediately, and even when using paper check, most retailers have check scanning machines that do roughly the same thing. On a personal note, the bank that I have allows my account to be deducted below my checking account balance only if the payment is requested electronically (e.g. someone who has my card information charges me for a monthly service). In this case, the funds are simply listed in the negative and deducted from any amount I deposit till the proper amount is repaid (e.g. if I'm at -$25 dollars due to a charge when my account balance was $0 and then I deposit $100, my available balance will then be $75, not $100). Finally, per the comment by @Thebluefish, while I minimize the likelihood you will be charged overdraft fees, it is good to check into the exact circumstances under which you might be charged unexpectedly by your bank. Read the documentation they give you carefully, including any mailed updates, and you'll reduce the chance of receiving a nasty surprise. For reference, here are some of the fees charged by Bank of America. What about taxes? When you begin working, an employer will usually have you fill out a tax form such as a W-4 Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate so that your employer can withhold the correct federal income tax from your wages. If they don't, then it is your responsibility to calculate and file your own income taxes (if you are self-employed, an independent contractor or paid under the table). If your employer is reputable, they will send you additional information (generally in February) you need to properly file your taxes prior to April 15th (the IRS tax deadline for most people). This additional information will likely be some variation of a W-2 Wage and Tax Statement or possibly a Form 1099-MISC. Do I have to worry about money in my bank account? Unless you have a significant amount in your bank savings account earning interest (see \"\"Should I save for the future?\"\" below), you won't have to pay any sort of tax on money in your bank account. If you do earn enough taxable interest, the bank will send you the proper forms to file your taxes. How do I file taxes? While it won't apply till next year, you will likely be able to fill out a Form 1040EZ Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents, as long as you don't have any kids in the meantime. ;-) You will either mail in the paper form (available at your local IRS office, post office, public library, etc.) or file electronically. There will be a lot of information on how to do this when the time comes, so don't worry about details just yet. Assuming your all paid up on your taxes (very likely unless you get a good paying job and take a lot of deductions throughout the year on your W-4), you'll probably get money back from the IRS when you file your tax return. As I mentioned above, if you have a bank account, you can opt to have your refund money returned electronically and get it much sooner than if you didn't have a bank account (again, possibly saving you literal months of waiting). Should I save for my future? If so, how much? Any good articles? Yes, you should save for the future, and start as soon as possible. It's outside the scope of this answer, but listen to your Economics professor talk about compound interest. In short, the later you start saving, the less money you have when you retire. Not that it makes much difference now, but you have to think that over 45 years of working (age 20-65), you likely have to have enough money for another 20+ years of not working (65-85+). So if you want $25,000 a year for retirement, you need to make ~$50,000 - $75,000 a year between your job and any financial instruments you have (savings account, stocks, bonds, CDs, mutual funds, IRAs, job retirement benefits, etc.) Where you should stick money your money is a complicated question which you can investigate at length as you get older. Personally, though, I would recommend some combination of IRA (Individual Retirement Account), long term mutual funds, and some sort of savings bonds. There is a metric ton of information regarding financial planning, but you can always read something like Investing For Dummies or you can try the Motley Fool's How To Invest (online and highly recommended). But I'm Only 17... So what should you do now? Budget. Sounds dumb, but just look at your basic expenses and total them all up (rent, utilities, phone, cable, food, gas, other costs) and divide by two. Out of each paycheck, this is how much money you need to save not to go into debt. Try to save a little each month. $50 - $100 a month is a good starting amount if you can swing it. You can always try to save more later. Invest early. You may not get great returns, but you don't need much money to start investing. Often you can get started with as little as $20 - $100. You'll have to do research but it is possible. Put money in your savings account. Checking accounts do not typically earn interest but money in savings accounts often do (that is, the bank will actually add money to your savings assuming you leave it in there long enough). Unfortunately, this rate of interest is only about 3.5% on average, which for most people means they don't get rich off it. You have to have a significant amount of money ($5,000+) to see even modest improvements in your savings account balance each month. But still, you may eventually get there. Get into the habit of putting money places that make you money in the long run. Don't go into debt. Don't get payday loans, pawn items, or abuse credit cards. Besides wrecking your credit, even a small amount of debt ($500+) can be very hard to break out of if you don't have a great paying job and can even make you homeless (no rent means no apartment). Remember, be financially responsible -- but assuming your parents aren't totally tight with money, don't be afraid to ask for cash when you really need it. This is a much better option than borrowing from some place that charges outrageous interest or making your payments late. Have an emergency account. As already mentioned in another excellent answer, you need to have money to \"\"smooth things out\"\" when you encounter unexpected events (your employer has trouble with your check, you have to pay for some sort of repair bill, you use more gas in your car in a month than normal, etc.) Anywhere from $200 - $2000+ should do it, but ideally you should have at least enough to cover a month of basic expenses. Build good credit. Avoid the temptation to get a lot of credit cards, even if stores and banks are dying to give them to you. You really only need one to build good credit (preferably a secured one from your bank, as mentioned above). Never charge more than you can pay off in a single month. Charging, then paying that amount off before the due date on your next statement, will help your credit immensely. Likewise, pay attention to your rent, utilities and monthly services (cell phone, cable, etc.). Even though these seem like options you can put off (\"\"Oh my electric bill is only $40? I'll pay that next month...\"\") late payments on all of these can negatively affect your credit score, which you will need later to get good loans and buy a house. Get health insurance. Now that the Affordable Care Act (ACA a.k.a Obamacare) has been enacted, it is now simpler to get health insurance, and it is actually required you have some. Hopefully, your employer will offer health coverage, you can find reasonably priced coverage on your own, or you live in a state with a health exchange. Even if you can't otherwise get/afford insurance, you may qualify for some sort of state coverage depending on income. If you don't have some sort of health insurance (private or otherwise), the IRS can potentially fine you when you file your taxes. Not to be too scary, but the fine as currently proposed is jumping up to about $700 for individuals in 2016 or so. So... even if you don't grab health insurance (which you absolutely should), you need to save about $60 a month, even if just for the fine. This answer turned out a bit longer than intended, but hopefully it will help you a little bit. Welcome to the wonderful world of adult financial responsibility. :-)\"" }, { "docid": "327925", "title": "", "text": "\"I didn't even have access to a 401(k) at age 24. You're starting early and that's good. You're frugal and that's good too. Retirement savings is really intended to be a set it and forget it kind of arrangement. You check in on it once a year, maybe adjust your contributions. While I applaud your financial conservatism, you're really hamstringing your retirement if you're too conservative. At age 24 you have a solid 30 years before retirement will even approach your radar and another 10 years after that before you have to plan your disbursements. The daily, monthly, quarterly movements of your retirement account will have literally zero impact on your life. There will be money market type savings accounts, bond funds, equity funds, and lifecycle funds. The lifecycle fund rolls your contributions to favor bonds and other \"\"safer\"\" investments as you age. The funds available in retirement accounts will all carry something called an expense ratio. This is the amount of money that the fund manager keeps for maintaining the fund. Be mindful of the expense ratios even more than the published performance of the fund. A low fee fund will typically have an expense ratio around 0.10%, or $1 per $1,000 per year in expense. There will be more exotic funds targeting this or that segment, they can carry expense ratios nearing 1% and some even higher. It's smart to take advantage of your employer's match. Personally, at age 24, at a minimum I would contribute the match to a low-fee S&P index fund.\"" }, { "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": "143591", "title": "", "text": "There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)" }, { "docid": "460491", "title": "", "text": "\"Bernie sources: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465333/sanders-favors-a-speculation-tax-on-big-wall-street-firms-what-is-that http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-would-bernie-sanders-wall-st-tax-look-like-2016-02-14 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-wall-street-tax-would-pay-his-/ &gt; Heading out to open land to make your society in your image would definitely prove your point, as long as it works. And do that how? Buy my own island? Sea-stead and hope the US military doesn't just drop a seal team on my head? &gt;We just have plenty of evidence that no government is less so. No, we really have evidence that structure is better than nothing. I'm not advocating for no structure. Businesses/Charities/Organizations/Etc. obviously work better when they are well structured. To answer your Enron example, no corporation would have enough power to actually do something like that if they didn't have at least partial backing by the government. You know the drill, big business buy politicians (\"\"contributions\"\"), politicians write big business laws (Anti-competitive to push small guys out). Then when big business needs additional help, politicians come in to save the day (bailouts). The market would be extremely more competitive if for example the Dodd frank act which to my understanding the repeal just recently passed the house went away. It has been choking community banks, just like Glass-Stegal did. It essentially only allowed the big banks to compete, surprise they did some stupid things (Great Recession) But if you don't think they didn't already know that they those bailouts were coming if needed, you are fooling yourself. These messages are almost getting to the point of TLDR. I want to simplify our debate a bit. The crux of my whole belief is this: The only way for a government to spend their citizens money in a better way than the citizens could would be if the government knew the utility of every single citizen. It is absolutely impossible to do that. The only people that truly know their own utility from something is them self. From here on I would like to debate the headlines like what I wrote above and not necessarily bullet points. We can every now and then but I find that we then start working on tangents of tangents of tangents and can get a little messy. However, I do not want to leave the current stones unturned with your response. I would say that if it was privatized, you are not going to have scope creep, at least not to the same extent. Say we have the LA militia that is wanting to help protect their ports, they want to help develop a new boat that is fast and can help maneuver around big ships quickly, like a better version of the new Mark Patrol boat. That money is their money directly, or the peoples money who they've asked to voluntarily give their money up to help protect their area. If they screw up and start asking for above necessary stuff or pick a developer who wastes their money, etc. They are going to lose \"\"business\"\", they will stop getting donations, lose profit, etc. However, the government doesn't have that. Why? Because their revenue/donations aren't voluntary. There really isn't accountability, especially in bureaucracy. To the exchange/stock problem: I would say that exchanges are private businesses too. They should have full reign on whether they allow trades. If they believe that there is an unnecessary selloff because of a fake tweet saying that President has been shot, they can stop that. If fact, it would be in there best interest to do so because it could limit unnecessary investor losses. It is unfortunate that the whole world is covered with governments. I wish there was another Western Hemisphere to populate and try new ways with. However, I would say that there is a clear shift away from government is society. A few examples, the driverless car. Elderly people and people who are disabled will be able to rely on the government less for transportation. Additionally, assuming everyone will eventually have a driverless car, there will be much less demand for traffic cops/ambulances/etc. Cryptocurrency/Noncash: As there are now more and more businesses that stop accepting cash (mainly starting with change), there will naturally be less robbers, because there is no money to steal (you could make the argument that there will be an increase in cyber theft, which I agree but not on a 1:1 ratio of the decrease in physical robberies), this decrease will help also lessen the demand for police officers. Package delivery: If it wasn't for the post office monopolizing their ability to deliver letters and using mailboxes, they would have gone broke a long time ago. Imagine Amazon, DHL, UPS, Fedex, etc all competing to deliver you letter. I'm assuming that it would be less than the cost of a current stamp and with a lot more assurance that it will actually get to its destination. Those are just a few examples\"" }, { "docid": "88942", "title": "", "text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\"" }, { "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": "537982", "title": "", "text": "CFDs should not be used as a buy and hold strategy (which is risky enough doing with shares directly). However, with proper money and risk management and the proper use of stop losses, a medium term strategy is very plausible. I was using CFDs in the past over a short time period of usually between a couple of days to a couple is weeks, trying to catch small swings with very tight stops. I kept getting wipsawed due to my stops being too tight so had too many small loses for my few bigger wins. And yes I lost some money, almost $5k in one year. I have recently started a more medium term strategy with wider stops trying to catch trending stocks. I have only recently started this strategy and so far have 2 loses and 3 wins. Just remember that you do get charged a financing fee for holding long position overnight, buy for short position you actually get paid the funding fee for overnight positions. My broker charges the official interest rate + 2.5% for long positions and pays the official rate - 2.5% for short positions. So yes CFDs can be used for the longer term as long as you are implementing proper money and risk management and use stop losses. Just be aware of the implications of using margin and all the costs involved." }, { "docid": "86304", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "529444", "title": "", "text": "As all said, the age limitation thing is nothing, and saving money not necessarily means to live poor nor Skimpy, spend your needs and try to get what you need instead of what you want, the 24 years old is a good start for saving money, the whole life still in front of you Good luck!" } ]

[ { "docid": "332938", "title": "", "text": "\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"" }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" }, { "docid": "455851", "title": "", "text": "If you buy a new car, the odds that it will require repairs are fairly low, and if it does, they should be covered by the warranty. If you buy a used car, there is a fair chance that it will need some sort of repairs, and there probably is no warranty. But think about how much repairs are likely to cost. A new car these days costs like $25,000 or more. You can find reasonably decent used cars for a few thousand dollars. Say you bought a used car for $2,000. Is it likely that it will need $23,000 in repairs? No way. Even if you had to make thousands of dollars worth of repairs to the used car, it would almost certainly be cheaper than buying a new car. I've bought three used vehicles in the last few years, one for me, one for my son, and one for my daughter. I paid, let's see, I think between $4,000 and $6,000 each. We've had my son's car for about 9 months and to date had $40 in repairs. My daughter's car turned out to have a bunch of problems; I ended up putting maybe another $2,000 into it. But now she's got a car she's very happy with that cost me maybe $6,000 between purchase and repairs, still way less than a new car. My pickup had big time problems, including needing a new transmission and a new engine. I've put, hmm, maybe $7,000 into it. It's definitely debatable if it was worth replacing the engine. But even at all that, if I had bought that truck new it would have cost over $30,000. Presumably if I bought new I would have had a nicer vehicle and I could have gotten exactly the options I wanted, so I'm not entirely happy with how this one turned out, but I still saved money by buying used. Here's what I do when I buy a used car: I go into it expecting that there will be repairs. Depending on the age and condition of the car, I plan on about $1000 within the first few months, probably another $1000 stretched out over the next year or so. I plan for this both financially and emotionally. By financially I mean that I have money set aside for repairs or have available credit or one way or another have planned for it in my budget. By emotionally I mean, I have told myself that I expect there to be problems, so I don't get all upset when there are and start screaming and crying about how I was ripped off. When you buy a used car, take it for granted that there will be problems, but you're still saving money over buying new. Sure, it's painful when the repair bills hit. But if you buy a new car, you'll have a monthly loan payment EVERY MONTH. Oh, and if you have a little mechanical aptitude and can do at least some of the maintenance yourself, the savings are bigger. Bear in mind that while you are saving money, you are paying for it in uncertainty and aggravation. With a new car, you can be reasonably confidant that it will indeed start and get you to work each day. With a used car, there's a much bigger chance that it won't start or will leave you stranded. $2,000 is definitely the low end, and you say that that would leave you no reserve for repairs. I don't know where you live or what used cars prices are like in your area. Where I live, in Michigan, you can get a pretty decent used car for about $5,000. If I were you I'd at least look into whether I could get a loan for $4,000 or $5,000 to maybe get a better used car. Of course that all depends on how much money you will be making and what your other expenses are. When you're a little richer and better established, then if a shiny new car is important to you, you can do that. Me, I'm 56 years old, I've bought new cars and I've bought used cars and I've concluded that having a fancy new car just isn't something that I care about, so these days I buy used." }, { "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": "498444", "title": "", "text": "There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown." }, { "docid": "88942", "title": "", "text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\"" }, { "docid": "315741", "title": "", "text": "It's not so much pros and cons as much as it is what are your savings goals? While it's best to start early to save money for retirement, you may have numerous short- to medium-term savings goals (school, down payment, etc). Here's a template you can consider. I would suggest that you open up an RRSP mutual fund or brokerage account and invest a certain amount that you feel free locking up for the next few decades and investing it in some sort of growth product (perhaps look at portfolios using the Couch Potato strategy). Then, also open up a TFSA mutual fund or brokerage account and use it to invest for medium-term goals (i.e. 5-10 years). Invest in products that will allow for some growth but with low chance of losing principle in that time frame. What I wouldn't do is open up a TFSA savings account and use it for day-to-day savings. The tax you save is negligible and you would need to keep track of deposits and withdrawals to ensure that you don't overcontribute for the tax year. Similarly, an RRSP savings account or GIC is far too conservative at your age, IMHO. Think of RRSP and TFSA as investment vehicles rather than accounts per se. Either type allows for you to invest in a vast array of products, including mutual funds, equities, some derivatives, gold, bonds, GICs, etc. To conclude, my view is to use RRSP to invest for conventional retirement goals, and use the TFSA to invest for medium-term and early retirement goals." }, { "docid": "403024", "title": "", "text": "According to the link below, it does appear that you must take an RMD, or Required Minimum Distribution, from your IRA at age 70½, or face a 50% penalty of the RMD AMOUNT that has NOT been taken, which is going to be much less than 50% of your entire account balance. Why specifically this happens would be opinion based on my interpretation of the reasoning behind those that enacted the law. I can tell you penalties like this are used to encourage behavior - you can't just leave your money in a tax-free account forever. The IRA is meant to help you build your savings for retirement, and at age 70½ you should be ready for retirement. This means you must begin withdrawing the money - but that doesn't mean you have to spend it. In the link below, there are outlines on what you can do to satisfy the required minimum distribution. As it specifies, you can take one lump sum, or spread it out over multiple payments, and there's a calculator to identify what your RMD will be. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/withdrawals_and_distributions/age_70_and_a_half_and_over As noted in the linked page, you DO NOT have to take an RMD on a Roth IRA. If this is important to you, you may want to consider Rolling Over your current IRA to a Roth." }, { "docid": "289450", "title": "", "text": "\"How much is rent in your area? You should compare a rental payment versus your mortgage payment now, bearing in mind the opportunity cost of the difference. Let's say that a rental unit in your area that has the same safety & convenience as your house costs $1600 per month to rent, and your mortgage is $2400. By staying in the house, you are losing that $800 month as well as interest earned on banking that money (however, right now, interest rates are negligible). Factor in total cost of ownership too, meaning extra utilities for one or the other (sometimes houses are cheaper, sometime not), property insurance and taxes for the house (if they aren't already in escrow through your mortgage) and generic house repair stuff. If the savings for a rental are worth more than a couple hundred a month, then I suggest you consider bailing. Start multiplying $500-1000 per month out over a year or two and decide if that extra cash is better for you than crappy credit. Also, this is not the most ethical thing, but I do know of one couple who stopped paying their mortgage for several months, knowing they were going to give the house back at the end. They took what they would have spent in mortgage payments during that time into a savings account, and will have more than enough cash to float for the few years that their credit is lowered by the default. Also something to consider is that we are in a time of ridiculous numbers of people defaulting. As such, a poor credit score might start to be more common among people with decent incomes, to the point where a \"\"poor\"\" score in 5 years is worth about the same as an \"\"average\"\" score today. I wouldn't count on that, but it might soften the blow of your bad credit if you default.\"" }, { "docid": "1315", "title": "", "text": "Set up budget categories. Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories. Pay your bills and expenses. For debts, pay the minimum on everything. There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted. That's the 'extra'. Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level). Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts. (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed). Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first. When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest. Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings. Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types. They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income. They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts. Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts. At your age, this is a significant achievement. Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want. If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing. You can/should do more than one at a time. The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you. Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early. There are groups of folks striving for this. They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies. The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends. Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages. At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal. But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality. Not for me but it might be for you." }, { "docid": "357242", "title": "", "text": "Your 5-8 year time frame is interesting because it is actually a two windows. When people are savings for retirement, they tell us how many years or decades they have until they reach retirement age. But they also imply that they are planning on spending decades withdrawing the money. But you wanting the money for a house in 5-8 years are needing the money more like somebody who is saving college money for a teenager. In fact your plan is similar in time frame as a 13 year old has for their college fund; start in 5 years but only have a 4 year spending window. Take the California 529 program: Beneficiary Age 13-14: Beneficiary Age 18+: The funding agreement provides a minimum guaranteed rate of return on the >amounts allocated to it by the Investment Portfolio. The minimum effective >annual interest rate will be neither less than 1% nor greater than 3% at >any time. So you plan of investing 100% in the S&P with your window is way too risky. You should only invest a portion of your down payment in equities, and be prepared to only be in that mode for a few years. Any drop in the market now hurts you, but one just before you need the funds would be devastating." }, { "docid": "395499", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. The real question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Do I want to a) give my parents a $45,000 gift, b) make them $45,000 loan, or c) neither?\"\" The way you are talking in your question is as if you have the responsibility and authority to manage their lives. Whether they choose bankruptcy, and the associated stigma and/or negative self-image of financial or moral failure, or choose to muddle through and delay retirement to pay off their debt, is their question and their decision. Look, you said that loaning it to them was out, because you'd rather see them retire than continue to work. But what if they want to continue to work? For all the stress they're dealing with now, entrepreneurial people like that are not happy You're mucking about in their lives like you can run it. Stop it. You don't have the right; they're adults. There may come a time when they are too senile to be responsible for themselves, and then you can, and should, step up and take responsibility for them in their old age, just as they did for you when you were a child. But that time is not now. And by the way, from the information you've given, the answer should be C) neither. If giving or loaning them this kind of money taps you out, then you can't afford it.\"" }, { "docid": "124762", "title": "", "text": "he general advice I get is that the younger you are the more higher risk investments you should include in your portfolio. I will be frank. This is a rule of thumb given out by many lay people and low-level financial advisors, but not by true experts in finance. It is little more than an old wive's tale and does not come from solid theory nor empirical work. Finance theory says the following: the riskiness of your portfolio should (inversely) correspond to your risk aversion. Period. It says nothing about your age. Some people become more risk-averse as they get older, but not everyone. In fact, for many people it probably makes sense to increase the riskiness of their portfolio as they age because the uncertainty about both wealth (social security, the value of your house, the value of your human capital) and costs (how many kids you will have, the rate of inflation, where you will live) go down as you age so your overall level of risk falls over time without a corresponding mechanical increase in risk aversion. In fact, if you start from the assumption that people's aversion is to not having enough money at retirement, you get the result that people should invest in relatively safe securities until the probability of not having enough to cover their minimum needs gets small, then they invest in highly risky securities with any money above this threshold. This latter result sounds reasonable in your case. At this point it appears unlikely that you will be unable to meet your minimum needs--I'm assuming here that you are able to appreciate the warnings about underfunded pensions in other answers and still feel comfortable. With any money above and beyond what you consider to be prudent preparation for retirement, you should hold a risky (but still fully diversified) portfolio. Don't reduce the risk of that portion of your portfolio as you age unless you find your personal risk aversion increasing." }, { "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": "374266", "title": "", "text": "It's important to have both long term goals and milestones along the way. In an article I wrote about saving 15% of one's income, I offered the following table: This table shows savings starting at age 20 (young, I know, so shift 2 years out) and ending at 60 with 18-1/2 year's of income saved due to investment returns. The 18-1/2 results in 74% of one's income replaced at retirement if we follow the 4% rule. One can adjust this number, assuming Social Security will replace 30%, and that spending will go down in retirement, you might need to save less than this shows. What's important is that as a starting point, it shows 2X income saved by age 30. Perhaps 1X is more reasonable. You are at just over .5X and proposing to spend nearly half of that on a single purchase. Financial independence means to somehow create an income you can live on without the need to work. There are many ways to do it, but it usually starts with a high saving rate. Your numbers suggest a good income now, but maybe this is only recently, else you'd have over $200K in the bank. I suggest you read all you can about investments and the types of retirement accounts, including 401(k) (if you have that available to you), IRA, and Roth IRA. The details you offer don't allow me to get much more specific than this." }, { "docid": "202552", "title": "", "text": "You should definately have a stop loss in place to manage your risk. For a time frame of 5 to 10 years I would be looking at a trailing stop loss of 20% to 25% off the recent high. Another type of stop you could use is a volatility stop. Here the more volatile the stock the larger the stop whilst the less volatile the stock the smaller the stop. You could use 3 or 4 x Weekly ATR (Average True Range) to achieve this. The reason you should always use a stop loss is because of what can happen and what did happen in 2008. Some stock markets have yet to fully recover from their peaks at the end of 2007, almost 9 years later. What would you do if you were planning to hold your positions for 5 years and then withdrawal your funds at the end of June 2021 for a particular purpose, and suddenly in February 2021 the market starts to fall. By the time June comes the market has fallen by over 50%, and you don't have enough funds available for the purpose you planned for. Instead if you were using a trailing stop loss you would manage to keep at least 75% of the peak of your portfolio. You could even spend 10 minutes each week to monitor your portfolio for warning signs that a downtrend may be around the corner and adjust your trailing stop to maybe 10% in these situations, protecting 90% of the peak of your portfolio. If the downtrend does not eventuate you can adjust your trailing back to a higher percentage. If you do get stopped out and shortly after the market recovers, then you can always buy back in or look for other stocks and ETFs to replace them. Sure you might lose a bit of profits if this happens, but it should always be part of your investment plan and risk management how you will handle these situation. If you are not using stop losses, risk management and money management you are essentially gambling. If you say I am going to buy these stocks and ETFs hold them for 10 years and then sell them, then you are just hoping to make gains - which is essentially gambling." }, { "docid": "356515", "title": "", "text": "\"You don't state where you are, so any answers to this will by necessity be very general in nature. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds You should have one transaction account and one savings account. You can get by with just a single transaction account, but I really don't recommend that. These are referred to with different names in different jurisdictions, but the basic idea is that you have one account where money is going in and out (the transaction account), and one where money goes in and stays (the savings account). You can then later on, as you discover various needs, build on top of that basic foundation. For example, I have separate accounts for each source of money that comes into my personal finances, which makes things much easier when I sit down to fill out the tax forms up to almost a year and a half later, but also adds a bit of complexity. For me, that simplicity at tax time is worth the additional complexity; for someone just starting out, it might not be. (And of course, it is completely unnecessary if you have only one source of taxable income and no other specific reason to separate income streams.) how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? With a single transaction account, your entire income will be going into that account. Having a single account to pay money into will also make life easier for your employer. You will then have to work out a budget that says how much you plan to spend on food, shelter, savings, and so on. how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? If you have no idea where to start, but have an appropriate financial history (as opposed to just now moving into a household of your own), bring out some old account statements and categorize each line item in a way that makes sense to you. Don't be too specific; four or five categories will probably be plenty. These are categories like \"\"living expenses\"\" (rent, electricity, utilities, ...), \"\"food and eating out\"\" (everything you put in your mouth), \"\"savings\"\" (don't forget to subtract what you take out of savings), and so on. This will be your initial budget. If you have no financial history, you are probably quite young and just moving out from living with your parents. Ask them how much might be reasonable in your area to spend on basic food, a place to live, and so on. Use those numbers as a starting point for a budget of your own, but don't take them as absolute truths. Always have a \"\"miscellaneous expenses\"\" or \"\"other\"\" line in your budget. There will always be expenses that you didn't plan for, and/or which don't neatly fall into any other category. Allocate a reasonable sum of money to this category. This should be where you take money from during a normal month when you overshoot in some budget category; your savings should be a last resort, not something you tap into on a regular basis. (If you find yourself needing to tap into your savings on a regular basis, adjust your budget accordingly.) Figure out based on your projected expenses and income how much you can reasonably set aside and not touch. It's impossible for us to say exactly how much this will be. Some people have trouble setting aside 5% of their income on a regular basis without touching it; others easily manage to save over 50% of their income. Don't worry if this turns out a small amount at first. Get in touch with your bank and set up an automatic transfer from your transaction account to the savings account, set to recur each and every time you get paid (you may want to allow a day or two of margin to ensure that the money has arrived in your account before it gets taken out), of the amount you determined that you can save on a regular basis. Then, try to forget that this money ever makes it into your finances. This is often referred to as the \"\"pay yourself first\"\" principle. You won't hit your budget exactly every month. Nobody does. In fact, it's more likely that no month will have you hit the budget exactly. Try to stay under your budgeted expenses, and when you get your next pay, unless you have a large bill coming up soon, transfer whatever remains into your savings account. Spend some time at the end of each month looking back at how well you managed to match your budget, and make any necessary adjustments. If you do this regularly, it won't take very long, and it will greatly increase the value of the budget you have made. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? Only if you would have made those purchases anyway, and have the money on hand to pay the bill in full when it comes due. Using credit cards to pay for things is a great convenience in many cases. Using credit cards to pay for things that you couldn't pay for using cash instead, is a recipe for financial disaster. People have also mentioned investment accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. This is good to have in mind, but in my opinion, the exact \"\"savings vehicle\"\" (type of place where you put the money) is a lot less important than getting into the habit of saving regularly and not touching that money. That is why I recommend just a savings account: if you miscalculate, forgot a large bill coming up, or for any other (good!) reason need access to the money, it won't be at a time when the investment has dropped 15% in value and you face a large penalty for withdrawing from your retirement savings. Once you have a good understanding of how much you are able to save reliably, you can divert a portion of that into other savings vehicles, including retirement savings. In fact, at that point, you probably should. Also, I suggest making a list of every single bill you pay regularly, its amount, when you paid it last time, and when you expect the next one to be due. Some bills are easy to predict (\"\"$234 rent is due the 1st of every month\"\"), and some are more difficult (\"\"the electricity bill is due on the 15th of the month after I use the electricity, but the amount due varies greatly from month to month\"\"). This isn't to know exactly how much you will have to pay, but to ensure that you aren't surprised by a bill that you didn't expect.\"" }, { "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": "509608", "title": "", "text": "Since your child is 2, he has a long time horizon for investment. Assuming the savings will be used at age 19, that's 17 years. So, I think your best bet is to invest primarily in equities (i.e. stock-based funds) and inside an RESP. Why equities? Historically, equities have outperformed debt and cash over longer time periods. But, equities can be volatile in the short term. So, do purchase some fixed-income investments (e.g. 30% government bonds and money market funds), and do also spread your equity money around as well -- e.g. buy some international funds in addition to Canadian funds. Rebalance every year, and as your child gets closer to university age, start shifting some assets out of equities and into fixed-income, to reduce risk. You don't want the portfolio torpedoed by an economic crisis the year before the money is required! Next, why inside an RESP? Finally... what if your kid doesn't attend post-secondary education? First, you should probably get a Family RESP, not a Group RESP. Group RESPs have strict rules and may forfeit contributions if your kid doesn't attend. Have a look at Choosing the Right RESP and Canadian Capitalist's post The Pros and Cons of Group RESP Plans. In a Family plan, if none of your kids end up attending post-secondary education, then you forfeit the government match money -- the feds get it back through a 20% surtax on withdrawals. But, you'll have the option of rolling over remaining funds into your RRSP, if you have room." } ]

[ { "docid": "305946", "title": "", "text": "It's nearly always a good idea to save for your future, if you don't already have sufficient funds to see out the rest of your days. The hardest part of the saving decision is knowing exactly what portion of your funds to save. If we save too aggressively, we risk having an adverse impact on our everyday life and, of course, there's always the possibility that we'll never make it to old age. But if we don't save, we risk the prospect of a poverty stricken retirement. It's not always easy to find a balance. The best solution is to make so much money that we cannot possibly spend it all!" } ]

[ { "docid": "462036", "title": "", "text": "\"This may be a bit advanced now, but once you start really working and get a place, I think this will apply more... Do I set up a bank account now? Yes. There is no reason not to. As an adult you will be using this much more than you think. Assuming you have a little money, you can walk in to any bank almost any day of the week and set up an account with them in very little time. Note that they may require you to be 18 if your parents won't be with you on the account. Otherwise, just ask any bank representative to help you do this. Just to be clear, if you can get a credit union account over a typical bank account, this is a great idea. Credit unions provide exactly the same financial services as a normal bank, but typically have variety of advantages over banks. Bank Account Parts Bank accounts typically have two parts, a checking account and a savings account. Your checking account typically is what you use for most day-to-day transactions and your savings account is generally used for, well, saving money. Having a bank account often gives you the following advantages: They give you an ability to store money without having large amounts of cash on hand. Once you start working regularly, you'll find you won't want to keep ~$600+ cash every two weeks in your wallet or apartment. They help you pay bills. When you set up your bank account, you will likely be able to get a Visa debit card which will process like a regular credit card but simply deduct funds from your checking account. You can use this card online to pay utilities (i.e. electricity and water), general bills (e.g. your cell phone and cable), purchase items (ex. at Amazon) or use it in stores to pay in lieu of cash. Be aware -- some banks will give you an ATM-only card before they send you the Visa debit card in the mail. This ATM-only card can only be used at ATMs as it's name implies. Similarly, if you can invest about ~$200 to build your credit, you can often get a deposit secured credit card attached to your account (basically a credit card where the bank keeps your money in case you can't pay your bill). If you treat this card with responsibility, you can eventually transition to an unsecured credit card. They save you hassles when cashing your check. If you don't have a bank where you can cash your check (e.g. you don't have an account), you will likely be charged check cashing fees (usually by places such as grocery stores or payday loan chains, or even other banks). Furthermore, if your check is over a certain amount, some places may refuse to cash your check period and a bank may be your only option. They give you a way to receive money electronically. The most common example of this is direct deposit. Many employers will send your money directly to your bank account instead of requiring you to cash a check. If they are prompt, this money gets to you faster and saves you trouble (on payday, you'll just receive a pay stub detailing your wages and the amount deposited rather than a check). Also, since you asked about taxes, you should know that when you do eventually file with the IRS, they have an option to receive your tax refund electronically as well (e.g. direct deposit into your bank account) and that can literally save you months in some cases depending on when you file your return and how many paper checks they have to process. Does it cost money to setup? It depends. Some banks have special offers, some don't. Most places will set up an account for free, but may require a minimum deposit to open the account (typically $50-$100). The Visa debit card mentioned above generally comes free. If you want a secured credit card as above, you will want about an additional $200 (so $250 - $300 total). Note that this is absolutely NOT required. You can exclusively use the Visa debit card above if you wish. Bank Account Fees Any fees charged when you have a bank account are usually minor anymore. Regardless, the bank will hand you a whole bunch of paperwork (mostly in legalese) detailing exactly how your account works. That said, the bank person helping set things up will cover what you need to know about keeping the account in plain English. The most common types of fee associated with a bank account are monthly maintenance fees and overdraft fees, but these aren't always necessarily charged. Likewise, there may be some other fees associated with the account but these vary from bank to bank. Monthly Maintenance Fees To give some examples... Overdraft Fees Overdraft fees are typically charged when you attempt to spend more money than you have in your bank account and the bank has to cover these charges. Overdraft fees typically apply to using paper checks (which it is unlikely you will be using), but not always. That said, it is very unlikely you will be charged overdraft fees for three reasons: Many banks have done away with these fees in lieu of other ways of generating revenue. Banks that still charge these fees usually have \"\"overdraft protection\"\" options for a little more money a month, effectively negating the possibility you will be charged these fees. The ability to deduct an amount of money from your checking account is now typically checked electronically before the payment is authorized. That is, using a Visa debit card, the card balance is checked immediately, and even when using paper check, most retailers have check scanning machines that do roughly the same thing. On a personal note, the bank that I have allows my account to be deducted below my checking account balance only if the payment is requested electronically (e.g. someone who has my card information charges me for a monthly service). In this case, the funds are simply listed in the negative and deducted from any amount I deposit till the proper amount is repaid (e.g. if I'm at -$25 dollars due to a charge when my account balance was $0 and then I deposit $100, my available balance will then be $75, not $100). Finally, per the comment by @Thebluefish, while I minimize the likelihood you will be charged overdraft fees, it is good to check into the exact circumstances under which you might be charged unexpectedly by your bank. Read the documentation they give you carefully, including any mailed updates, and you'll reduce the chance of receiving a nasty surprise. For reference, here are some of the fees charged by Bank of America. What about taxes? When you begin working, an employer will usually have you fill out a tax form such as a W-4 Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate so that your employer can withhold the correct federal income tax from your wages. If they don't, then it is your responsibility to calculate and file your own income taxes (if you are self-employed, an independent contractor or paid under the table). If your employer is reputable, they will send you additional information (generally in February) you need to properly file your taxes prior to April 15th (the IRS tax deadline for most people). This additional information will likely be some variation of a W-2 Wage and Tax Statement or possibly a Form 1099-MISC. Do I have to worry about money in my bank account? Unless you have a significant amount in your bank savings account earning interest (see \"\"Should I save for the future?\"\" below), you won't have to pay any sort of tax on money in your bank account. If you do earn enough taxable interest, the bank will send you the proper forms to file your taxes. How do I file taxes? While it won't apply till next year, you will likely be able to fill out a Form 1040EZ Income Tax Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents, as long as you don't have any kids in the meantime. ;-) You will either mail in the paper form (available at your local IRS office, post office, public library, etc.) or file electronically. There will be a lot of information on how to do this when the time comes, so don't worry about details just yet. Assuming your all paid up on your taxes (very likely unless you get a good paying job and take a lot of deductions throughout the year on your W-4), you'll probably get money back from the IRS when you file your tax return. As I mentioned above, if you have a bank account, you can opt to have your refund money returned electronically and get it much sooner than if you didn't have a bank account (again, possibly saving you literal months of waiting). Should I save for my future? If so, how much? Any good articles? Yes, you should save for the future, and start as soon as possible. It's outside the scope of this answer, but listen to your Economics professor talk about compound interest. In short, the later you start saving, the less money you have when you retire. Not that it makes much difference now, but you have to think that over 45 years of working (age 20-65), you likely have to have enough money for another 20+ years of not working (65-85+). So if you want $25,000 a year for retirement, you need to make ~$50,000 - $75,000 a year between your job and any financial instruments you have (savings account, stocks, bonds, CDs, mutual funds, IRAs, job retirement benefits, etc.) Where you should stick money your money is a complicated question which you can investigate at length as you get older. Personally, though, I would recommend some combination of IRA (Individual Retirement Account), long term mutual funds, and some sort of savings bonds. There is a metric ton of information regarding financial planning, but you can always read something like Investing For Dummies or you can try the Motley Fool's How To Invest (online and highly recommended). But I'm Only 17... So what should you do now? Budget. Sounds dumb, but just look at your basic expenses and total them all up (rent, utilities, phone, cable, food, gas, other costs) and divide by two. Out of each paycheck, this is how much money you need to save not to go into debt. Try to save a little each month. $50 - $100 a month is a good starting amount if you can swing it. You can always try to save more later. Invest early. You may not get great returns, but you don't need much money to start investing. Often you can get started with as little as $20 - $100. You'll have to do research but it is possible. Put money in your savings account. Checking accounts do not typically earn interest but money in savings accounts often do (that is, the bank will actually add money to your savings assuming you leave it in there long enough). Unfortunately, this rate of interest is only about 3.5% on average, which for most people means they don't get rich off it. You have to have a significant amount of money ($5,000+) to see even modest improvements in your savings account balance each month. But still, you may eventually get there. Get into the habit of putting money places that make you money in the long run. Don't go into debt. Don't get payday loans, pawn items, or abuse credit cards. Besides wrecking your credit, even a small amount of debt ($500+) can be very hard to break out of if you don't have a great paying job and can even make you homeless (no rent means no apartment). Remember, be financially responsible -- but assuming your parents aren't totally tight with money, don't be afraid to ask for cash when you really need it. This is a much better option than borrowing from some place that charges outrageous interest or making your payments late. Have an emergency account. As already mentioned in another excellent answer, you need to have money to \"\"smooth things out\"\" when you encounter unexpected events (your employer has trouble with your check, you have to pay for some sort of repair bill, you use more gas in your car in a month than normal, etc.) Anywhere from $200 - $2000+ should do it, but ideally you should have at least enough to cover a month of basic expenses. Build good credit. Avoid the temptation to get a lot of credit cards, even if stores and banks are dying to give them to you. You really only need one to build good credit (preferably a secured one from your bank, as mentioned above). Never charge more than you can pay off in a single month. Charging, then paying that amount off before the due date on your next statement, will help your credit immensely. Likewise, pay attention to your rent, utilities and monthly services (cell phone, cable, etc.). Even though these seem like options you can put off (\"\"Oh my electric bill is only $40? I'll pay that next month...\"\") late payments on all of these can negatively affect your credit score, which you will need later to get good loans and buy a house. Get health insurance. Now that the Affordable Care Act (ACA a.k.a Obamacare) has been enacted, it is now simpler to get health insurance, and it is actually required you have some. Hopefully, your employer will offer health coverage, you can find reasonably priced coverage on your own, or you live in a state with a health exchange. Even if you can't otherwise get/afford insurance, you may qualify for some sort of state coverage depending on income. If you don't have some sort of health insurance (private or otherwise), the IRS can potentially fine you when you file your taxes. Not to be too scary, but the fine as currently proposed is jumping up to about $700 for individuals in 2016 or so. So... even if you don't grab health insurance (which you absolutely should), you need to save about $60 a month, even if just for the fine. This answer turned out a bit longer than intended, but hopefully it will help you a little bit. Welcome to the wonderful world of adult financial responsibility. :-)\"" }, { "docid": "333004", "title": "", "text": "First of all kudos to you for seeing the value in saving at a young age. There are several different things you can mean by this and I'm not sure which is accurate so I am going to address the first two that I thought of. If you are selling your investments because you need the money (emergency expenses, saved enough for a short term goal, whatever the reason) then this may not be the best solution for your savings. Investing in mutual funds, ETFs, stocks, 401k, IRA, etc are typically for longer term goals such as a goal that is 10+ years away (maybe buying a home, paying for college for your children, retirement, etc). If you are selling your investments because you believe that another investment is performing better and you want to get in on that one instead what I would suggest is leaving the money you have invested where it is and starting future investments in the new fund/ETF you are interested in. For example if you have $2000 invested in fund X and now you do some research and fund Q looks more appealing that is great, start investing in fund Q with your next deposit. Any research you do will be based on past results, there is nothing that guarantees that fund Q will continue doing better than the fund X you already have. Trying to time the market rarely ends well for the investor. I would encourage you to continue saving money a bit at a time just like you have been doing. Avoid selling your investments until it is time to sell them for whatever goal you intended them for. Set aside some cash to cover any unexpected expenses so you won't have to sell your investments to cover the costs, even at 18 unplanned things happen." }, { "docid": "223872", "title": "", "text": "Lets imagine two scenarios: 1) You make 10.4k (40% of total income) yearly contributions to a savings account that earns 1% interest for 10 years. In this scenario, you put in 104k and earned 5.89k in interest, for a total of 109.9k. 2) You make the same 10.4k yearly contribution to an index fund that earns 7% on average for 10 years. In this scenario you put in the same 104k, but earned 49.7k in interest*, for a total of 153.7k. The main advantage is option 1) has more liquidity -- you can get the money out faster. Option 2) requires time to divest any stocks / bonds. So you need enough savings to get you through that divestment period. Imagine another two scenarios where you stop earning income: 1-b) You stop working and have only your 109.9k principal amount in a 1% savings account. If you withdraw 15.6k yearly for your current cost of living, you will run through your savings in 7 years. 2-b) You stop working and have only 20k (2 years of savings) in savings that earns 1% with 153.7k in stocks that earns 7%. If you withdraw your cost of living currently at 15.6k, you will run through your investments in 15 years and your savings in 2 years, for a total of 17 years. The two years of income in savings is extremely generous for how long it starts the divestment process. In summary, invest your money. It wasn't specified what currency we are talking about, but you can easily find access to an investment company no matter where you are in the world. Keep a small amount for a rainy day." }, { "docid": "403024", "title": "", "text": "According to the link below, it does appear that you must take an RMD, or Required Minimum Distribution, from your IRA at age 70½, or face a 50% penalty of the RMD AMOUNT that has NOT been taken, which is going to be much less than 50% of your entire account balance. Why specifically this happens would be opinion based on my interpretation of the reasoning behind those that enacted the law. I can tell you penalties like this are used to encourage behavior - you can't just leave your money in a tax-free account forever. The IRA is meant to help you build your savings for retirement, and at age 70½ you should be ready for retirement. This means you must begin withdrawing the money - but that doesn't mean you have to spend it. In the link below, there are outlines on what you can do to satisfy the required minimum distribution. As it specifies, you can take one lump sum, or spread it out over multiple payments, and there's a calculator to identify what your RMD will be. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/withdrawals_and_distributions/age_70_and_a_half_and_over As noted in the linked page, you DO NOT have to take an RMD on a Roth IRA. If this is important to you, you may want to consider Rolling Over your current IRA to a Roth." }, { "docid": "455851", "title": "", "text": "If you buy a new car, the odds that it will require repairs are fairly low, and if it does, they should be covered by the warranty. If you buy a used car, there is a fair chance that it will need some sort of repairs, and there probably is no warranty. But think about how much repairs are likely to cost. A new car these days costs like $25,000 or more. You can find reasonably decent used cars for a few thousand dollars. Say you bought a used car for $2,000. Is it likely that it will need $23,000 in repairs? No way. Even if you had to make thousands of dollars worth of repairs to the used car, it would almost certainly be cheaper than buying a new car. I've bought three used vehicles in the last few years, one for me, one for my son, and one for my daughter. I paid, let's see, I think between $4,000 and $6,000 each. We've had my son's car for about 9 months and to date had $40 in repairs. My daughter's car turned out to have a bunch of problems; I ended up putting maybe another $2,000 into it. But now she's got a car she's very happy with that cost me maybe $6,000 between purchase and repairs, still way less than a new car. My pickup had big time problems, including needing a new transmission and a new engine. I've put, hmm, maybe $7,000 into it. It's definitely debatable if it was worth replacing the engine. But even at all that, if I had bought that truck new it would have cost over $30,000. Presumably if I bought new I would have had a nicer vehicle and I could have gotten exactly the options I wanted, so I'm not entirely happy with how this one turned out, but I still saved money by buying used. Here's what I do when I buy a used car: I go into it expecting that there will be repairs. Depending on the age and condition of the car, I plan on about $1000 within the first few months, probably another $1000 stretched out over the next year or so. I plan for this both financially and emotionally. By financially I mean that I have money set aside for repairs or have available credit or one way or another have planned for it in my budget. By emotionally I mean, I have told myself that I expect there to be problems, so I don't get all upset when there are and start screaming and crying about how I was ripped off. When you buy a used car, take it for granted that there will be problems, but you're still saving money over buying new. Sure, it's painful when the repair bills hit. But if you buy a new car, you'll have a monthly loan payment EVERY MONTH. Oh, and if you have a little mechanical aptitude and can do at least some of the maintenance yourself, the savings are bigger. Bear in mind that while you are saving money, you are paying for it in uncertainty and aggravation. With a new car, you can be reasonably confidant that it will indeed start and get you to work each day. With a used car, there's a much bigger chance that it won't start or will leave you stranded. $2,000 is definitely the low end, and you say that that would leave you no reserve for repairs. I don't know where you live or what used cars prices are like in your area. Where I live, in Michigan, you can get a pretty decent used car for about $5,000. If I were you I'd at least look into whether I could get a loan for $4,000 or $5,000 to maybe get a better used car. Of course that all depends on how much money you will be making and what your other expenses are. When you're a little richer and better established, then if a shiny new car is important to you, you can do that. Me, I'm 56 years old, I've bought new cars and I've bought used cars and I've concluded that having a fancy new car just isn't something that I care about, so these days I buy used." }, { "docid": "86304", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "287991", "title": "", "text": "I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy." }, { "docid": "396127", "title": "", "text": "While there is no age limit, bear in mind that saving money makes sense only if it doesn't delay your paying off expensive debt. If you have credit cards or expensive loans you would be best placed to focus on paying them down before saving a lot. If you save and keep debt, you'll effectively lose money as the interest on your debt will usually be higher than you can earn on savings. Having said that, it's worth saving a small amount anyway to have as an emergency fund. As you pay off your debt, start saving the money you no longer have to pay out and it will soon pay dividends." }, { "docid": "586272", "title": "", "text": "\"The real question is what can you NOT do! If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation. That means you have the tools to ask and answer \"\"what if\"\" questions, such as: \"\"If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?\"\" You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. \"\"How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?\"\" This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing. If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. \"\"If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?\"\" You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass. By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. \"\"If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?\"\" Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like \"\"Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?\"\" These are just a few random examples. The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask \"\"how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?\"\" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much \"\"what\"\" you can do, but \"\"how\"\" exactly to do it. You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions. Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet.\"" }, { "docid": "80844", "title": "", "text": "After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth." }, { "docid": "202552", "title": "", "text": "You should definately have a stop loss in place to manage your risk. For a time frame of 5 to 10 years I would be looking at a trailing stop loss of 20% to 25% off the recent high. Another type of stop you could use is a volatility stop. Here the more volatile the stock the larger the stop whilst the less volatile the stock the smaller the stop. You could use 3 or 4 x Weekly ATR (Average True Range) to achieve this. The reason you should always use a stop loss is because of what can happen and what did happen in 2008. Some stock markets have yet to fully recover from their peaks at the end of 2007, almost 9 years later. What would you do if you were planning to hold your positions for 5 years and then withdrawal your funds at the end of June 2021 for a particular purpose, and suddenly in February 2021 the market starts to fall. By the time June comes the market has fallen by over 50%, and you don't have enough funds available for the purpose you planned for. Instead if you were using a trailing stop loss you would manage to keep at least 75% of the peak of your portfolio. You could even spend 10 minutes each week to monitor your portfolio for warning signs that a downtrend may be around the corner and adjust your trailing stop to maybe 10% in these situations, protecting 90% of the peak of your portfolio. If the downtrend does not eventuate you can adjust your trailing back to a higher percentage. If you do get stopped out and shortly after the market recovers, then you can always buy back in or look for other stocks and ETFs to replace them. Sure you might lose a bit of profits if this happens, but it should always be part of your investment plan and risk management how you will handle these situation. If you are not using stop losses, risk management and money management you are essentially gambling. If you say I am going to buy these stocks and ETFs hold them for 10 years and then sell them, then you are just hoping to make gains - which is essentially gambling." }, { "docid": "337561", "title": "", "text": "\"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"" }, { "docid": "81343", "title": "", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"" }, { "docid": "501384", "title": "", "text": "\"This is only a partial answer to your question #1. If you have a conservative approach to savings (and, actually, even if you don't), you should not invest all of your money in any single industry or product. If you want to invest some money in oil, okay, but don't overdo it. If your larger goal is to invest the money in a manner that is less risky but still more lucrative than a savings account, you should read up on personal finance and investing to get a sense of what options are available. A commonly-recommended option is to invest in low-cost index funds that mirror the performance of the stock market as a whole. The question of \"\"how should I invest\"\" is very broad, but you can find lots of starting points in other questions on this site, by googling, or by visiting your local library.\"" }, { "docid": "234846", "title": "", "text": "&gt;But on the bright side, the most common decade for people to start saving is in their 20s. Twice as many 30 to 49 year olds said they started saving in their 20s instead of their 30s, while the 50 to 64 age group was “only slightly more likely” to have started saving in their 20s over their 30s, according to the report, which surveyed 1,003 adults living in the continental U.S. So they are basing their analysis of how early people start saving purely by studying people in their 30s and 40s with those in their 50s and 60s. They don't compare either of those age groups with those in their 20s and 30s to see how things have changed?" }, { "docid": "434972", "title": "", "text": "They start at six figures with just a bachelor's, and their raises tend to be pretty substantial. Many of them will earn more than $200k before they are age 30. Basically, if they were to live relatively normal lifestyles (many do not), save and invest most of their earnings, then they should be able to become a millionaire at around age 30 while just following their career path, without taking big risks such as starting a business." }, { "docid": "498444", "title": "", "text": "There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age. What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown." }, { "docid": "406872", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"" }, { "docid": "242310", "title": "", "text": "\"Its important to note that aggression, or better yet volatility, does not necessarily offer higher returns. One can find funds that have a high beta (measure of volatility) and lower performance then stock funds with a lower beta. Additionally, to Micheal's point, better performance could be undone by higher fees. Age is unimportant when deciding the acceptable volatility. Its more important as to when the money is to be available. If there might be an immediate need, or even less than a year, then stick to a savings account. Five years, some volatility can be accepted, if 10 years or more seek to maximize rate of return. For example assume a person is near retirement age. They are expected to have 50K per year expenses. If they have 250K wrapped up in CDs and savings, and another 250K in some conservative investments, they can, and should, be \"\"aggressive\"\" with any remaining money. On the contrary a person your age that is savings for a house intends to buy one in three years. Savings for the down payment should be pretty darn conservative. Something like 75% in savings accounts, and maybe 25% in some conservative investments. As the time to buy approaches they can pull the money out of the conservative investments at a optimal time. Also you should not be investing without an emergency fund in place. Get that done first, then look to invest. If your friend does not understand these basic concepts there is no point in paying for his advice.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "538023", "title": "", "text": "You've never saved money? Have you ever bought anything? There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something. In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day. Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places. Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank. Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed. Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it. The traditional concept of savings is gone. There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway. Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right." } ]

[ { "docid": "383102", "title": "", "text": "\"I am pretty sure you could find a number of financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number, but the rule of thumb I like best is Save a dime of every dollar. 10% (Savings means save for retirement, not vacations.) Here is a nice article from radio personality Clark Howard with some adjustments based on your age: Saving for retirement later in life? If you're getting started saving for retirement later in life, the dime out of every dollar rule won't cut it for you. So for you, The Baltimore Sun has crunched the following numbers: Jayraj has a particularly good and just as simple bit of math. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/30751/91 Your retirement and financial planning should not end with a flat percentage. In fact, the chances that any simple math formula is adequate are very low. My percentages (or Jayraj's simple math) are only starting places. If you are at the point where you are asking \"\"where do I start\"\", starting with this super easy no-brainer approach is great because the key is starting and doing it.\"" }, { "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": "86304", "title": "", "text": "\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "241161", "title": "", "text": "A Roth IRA is intended for retirement. Before age 59.5 (I think), you can only withdraw the amount you deposited without penalty. It's great you're saving in a Roth, but you shouldn't put savings in there that you will need before you reach sufficient age. And since it's long-term, you can invest in things you expect to grow over the long term, like equities. You should keep emergency funds either in federally insured, extremely liquid accounts (bank savings) or money market funds (which aren't insured, but are close enough to zero-risk). Yes, the interest rates are terrible right now. But anything else would potentially leave you with insufficient funds in the event of, you know, an emergency." }, { "docid": "501384", "title": "", "text": "\"This is only a partial answer to your question #1. If you have a conservative approach to savings (and, actually, even if you don't), you should not invest all of your money in any single industry or product. If you want to invest some money in oil, okay, but don't overdo it. If your larger goal is to invest the money in a manner that is less risky but still more lucrative than a savings account, you should read up on personal finance and investing to get a sense of what options are available. A commonly-recommended option is to invest in low-cost index funds that mirror the performance of the stock market as a whole. The question of \"\"how should I invest\"\" is very broad, but you can find lots of starting points in other questions on this site, by googling, or by visiting your local library.\"" }, { "docid": "509504", "title": "", "text": "The NPS is launched by The Government of India with a lot of hope. But it has not been taken off as it was expected due to some reasons. Though PFRDA is working for the betterment of the product, still there are disadvantages of the product, which I feel are: 1. The liquidity is an issue for NPS. If you are 30 years age and started investing for NPS you need to wait for another 30 years for withdrawal of money. 2. Though there is option of partial withdrawal, it's not so easy during requirement. 3. You need to invest in a government approved annuity fund which is mandatory. 4. The 20% of the maturity amount is still taxable if you withdraw it lump sum. So, you should not invest in NPS only for the tax saving purpose." }, { "docid": "202552", "title": "", "text": "You should definately have a stop loss in place to manage your risk. For a time frame of 5 to 10 years I would be looking at a trailing stop loss of 20% to 25% off the recent high. Another type of stop you could use is a volatility stop. Here the more volatile the stock the larger the stop whilst the less volatile the stock the smaller the stop. You could use 3 or 4 x Weekly ATR (Average True Range) to achieve this. The reason you should always use a stop loss is because of what can happen and what did happen in 2008. Some stock markets have yet to fully recover from their peaks at the end of 2007, almost 9 years later. What would you do if you were planning to hold your positions for 5 years and then withdrawal your funds at the end of June 2021 for a particular purpose, and suddenly in February 2021 the market starts to fall. By the time June comes the market has fallen by over 50%, and you don't have enough funds available for the purpose you planned for. Instead if you were using a trailing stop loss you would manage to keep at least 75% of the peak of your portfolio. You could even spend 10 minutes each week to monitor your portfolio for warning signs that a downtrend may be around the corner and adjust your trailing stop to maybe 10% in these situations, protecting 90% of the peak of your portfolio. If the downtrend does not eventuate you can adjust your trailing back to a higher percentage. If you do get stopped out and shortly after the market recovers, then you can always buy back in or look for other stocks and ETFs to replace them. Sure you might lose a bit of profits if this happens, but it should always be part of your investment plan and risk management how you will handle these situation. If you are not using stop losses, risk management and money management you are essentially gambling. If you say I am going to buy these stocks and ETFs hold them for 10 years and then sell them, then you are just hoping to make gains - which is essentially gambling." }, { "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": "455851", "title": "", "text": "If you buy a new car, the odds that it will require repairs are fairly low, and if it does, they should be covered by the warranty. If you buy a used car, there is a fair chance that it will need some sort of repairs, and there probably is no warranty. But think about how much repairs are likely to cost. A new car these days costs like $25,000 or more. You can find reasonably decent used cars for a few thousand dollars. Say you bought a used car for $2,000. Is it likely that it will need $23,000 in repairs? No way. Even if you had to make thousands of dollars worth of repairs to the used car, it would almost certainly be cheaper than buying a new car. I've bought three used vehicles in the last few years, one for me, one for my son, and one for my daughter. I paid, let's see, I think between $4,000 and $6,000 each. We've had my son's car for about 9 months and to date had $40 in repairs. My daughter's car turned out to have a bunch of problems; I ended up putting maybe another $2,000 into it. But now she's got a car she's very happy with that cost me maybe $6,000 between purchase and repairs, still way less than a new car. My pickup had big time problems, including needing a new transmission and a new engine. I've put, hmm, maybe $7,000 into it. It's definitely debatable if it was worth replacing the engine. But even at all that, if I had bought that truck new it would have cost over $30,000. Presumably if I bought new I would have had a nicer vehicle and I could have gotten exactly the options I wanted, so I'm not entirely happy with how this one turned out, but I still saved money by buying used. Here's what I do when I buy a used car: I go into it expecting that there will be repairs. Depending on the age and condition of the car, I plan on about $1000 within the first few months, probably another $1000 stretched out over the next year or so. I plan for this both financially and emotionally. By financially I mean that I have money set aside for repairs or have available credit or one way or another have planned for it in my budget. By emotionally I mean, I have told myself that I expect there to be problems, so I don't get all upset when there are and start screaming and crying about how I was ripped off. When you buy a used car, take it for granted that there will be problems, but you're still saving money over buying new. Sure, it's painful when the repair bills hit. But if you buy a new car, you'll have a monthly loan payment EVERY MONTH. Oh, and if you have a little mechanical aptitude and can do at least some of the maintenance yourself, the savings are bigger. Bear in mind that while you are saving money, you are paying for it in uncertainty and aggravation. With a new car, you can be reasonably confidant that it will indeed start and get you to work each day. With a used car, there's a much bigger chance that it won't start or will leave you stranded. $2,000 is definitely the low end, and you say that that would leave you no reserve for repairs. I don't know where you live or what used cars prices are like in your area. Where I live, in Michigan, you can get a pretty decent used car for about $5,000. If I were you I'd at least look into whether I could get a loan for $4,000 or $5,000 to maybe get a better used car. Of course that all depends on how much money you will be making and what your other expenses are. When you're a little richer and better established, then if a shiny new car is important to you, you can do that. Me, I'm 56 years old, I've bought new cars and I've bought used cars and I've concluded that having a fancy new car just isn't something that I care about, so these days I buy used." }, { "docid": "168983", "title": "", "text": "\"The statement \"\"Finance is something all adults need to deal with but almost nobody learns in school.\"\" hurts me. However I have to disagree, as a finance student, I feel like everyone around me is sound in finance and competition in the finance market is so stiff that I have a hard time even finding a paid internship right now. I think its all about perspective from your circumstances, but back to the question. Personally, I feel that there is no one-size-fits-all financial planning rules. It is very subjective and is absolutely up to an individual regarding his financial goals. The number 1 rule I have of my own is - Do not ever spend what I do not have. Your reflected point is \"\"Always pay off your credit card at the end of each month.\"\", to which I ask, why not spend out of your savings? plan your grocery monies, necessary monthly expenditures, before spending on your \"\"wants\"\" should you have any leftovers. That way, you would not even have to pay credit every month because you don't owe any. Secondly, when you can get the above in check, then you start thinking about saving for the rainy days (i.e. Emergency fund). This is absolutely according to each individual's circumstance and could be regarded as say - 6 months * monthly income. Start saving a portion of your monthly income until you have set up a strong emergency fund you think you will require. After you have done than, and only after, should you start thinking about investments. Personally, health > wealth any time you ask. I always advise my friends/family to secure a minimum health insurance before venturing into investments for returns. You can choose not to and start investing straight away, but should any adverse health conditions hit you, all your returns would be wiped out into paying for treatments unless you are earning disgusting amounts in investment returns. This risk increases when you are handling the bills of your family. When you stick your money into an index ETF, the most powerful tool as a retail investor would be dollar-cost-averaging and I strongly recommend you read up on it. Also, because I am not from the western part of the world, I do not have the cultural mindset that I have to move out and get into a world of debt to live on my own when I reached 18. I have to say I could not be more glad that the culture does not exist in Asian countries. I find that there is absolutely nothing wrong with living with your parents and I still am at age 24. The pressure that culture puts on teenagers is uncalled for and there are no obvious benefits to it, only unmanageable mortgage/rent payments arise from it with the entry level pay that a normal 18 year old could get.\"" }, { "docid": "395499", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. The real question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Do I want to a) give my parents a $45,000 gift, b) make them $45,000 loan, or c) neither?\"\" The way you are talking in your question is as if you have the responsibility and authority to manage their lives. Whether they choose bankruptcy, and the associated stigma and/or negative self-image of financial or moral failure, or choose to muddle through and delay retirement to pay off their debt, is their question and their decision. Look, you said that loaning it to them was out, because you'd rather see them retire than continue to work. But what if they want to continue to work? For all the stress they're dealing with now, entrepreneurial people like that are not happy You're mucking about in their lives like you can run it. Stop it. You don't have the right; they're adults. There may come a time when they are too senile to be responsible for themselves, and then you can, and should, step up and take responsibility for them in their old age, just as they did for you when you were a child. But that time is not now. And by the way, from the information you've given, the answer should be C) neither. If giving or loaning them this kind of money taps you out, then you can't afford it.\"" }, { "docid": "1315", "title": "", "text": "Set up budget categories. Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories. Pay your bills and expenses. For debts, pay the minimum on everything. There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted. That's the 'extra'. Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level). Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts. (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed). Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first. When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest. Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings. Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types. They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income. They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts. Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts. At your age, this is a significant achievement. Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want. If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing. You can/should do more than one at a time. The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you. Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early. There are groups of folks striving for this. They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies. The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends. Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages. At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal. But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality. Not for me but it might be for you." }, { "docid": "326560", "title": "", "text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?" }, { "docid": "327240", "title": "", "text": "If you save money, invest in an education, start a business, refurbish your house, invest in technology by buying shares in a growing company, build something that can give you value long term, save money for your kids to inherit, postpone your spending, etc. it all accumulates and gives strong long term returns. These are the decisions we should encourage everyone to make, as it is these decisions that good countries are made from. You can rob the rich once, and then the richest and most productive people stop working and quickly all turns to shit, like every socialist experiment ever. I work hard and don't spend anything. At this rate I can likely retire in 10 years at 40 years old. Would be pretty pissed by then to have to share it with everyone who didn't work hard and didn't save and invest anything." }, { "docid": "287991", "title": "", "text": "I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy." }, { "docid": "509608", "title": "", "text": "Since your child is 2, he has a long time horizon for investment. Assuming the savings will be used at age 19, that's 17 years. So, I think your best bet is to invest primarily in equities (i.e. stock-based funds) and inside an RESP. Why equities? Historically, equities have outperformed debt and cash over longer time periods. But, equities can be volatile in the short term. So, do purchase some fixed-income investments (e.g. 30% government bonds and money market funds), and do also spread your equity money around as well -- e.g. buy some international funds in addition to Canadian funds. Rebalance every year, and as your child gets closer to university age, start shifting some assets out of equities and into fixed-income, to reduce risk. You don't want the portfolio torpedoed by an economic crisis the year before the money is required! Next, why inside an RESP? Finally... what if your kid doesn't attend post-secondary education? First, you should probably get a Family RESP, not a Group RESP. Group RESPs have strict rules and may forfeit contributions if your kid doesn't attend. Have a look at Choosing the Right RESP and Canadian Capitalist's post The Pros and Cons of Group RESP Plans. In a Family plan, if none of your kids end up attending post-secondary education, then you forfeit the government match money -- the feds get it back through a 20% surtax on withdrawals. But, you'll have the option of rolling over remaining funds into your RRSP, if you have room." }, { "docid": "545759", "title": "", "text": "There are lots of sub-parts to your question. Let's takle them one at a time. Should I worry about an IRA at this age? Absolutely! Or at least some form of retirement account. When you are young is the BEST time to start putting money into a retirement account because you have so much time for it to grow. Compounding interest is a magical thing. Even if you can only afford to put a very small amount in the account, do it! You will have to put a heck of a lot less money into the account over your working career if you start now. Is there a certain amount you need for the IRA deduction? No. Essentially with a traditional IRA you can just subtract the amount you deposited (up to the contribution limit) from your income when calculating your taxes. What kind of IRA should I get? I suggest a ROTH IRA, but be warned that with that kind you get the tax breaks when you retire, not now. If you think taxes will be higher in 40 years or so, then the Roth is a clear winner. Traditional IRA: Tax deduction this year for contribution; investment plus gains are taxed as income when you take the money out at retirement. Roth IRA: Investment amount is taxed in the year you put it in; no taxes on investment amount or gains when you take it out at retirement. Given the long horizon that you will be investing, the money is likely going to at least double. So the total amount you are taxed on over your lifetime would probably be less with the ROTH even if tax rates remain the same. Is the 401K a better option? If they offer a match (most do) then it is a no-brainer, the employer 401K always comes out on top because they are basically paying you extra to put money into savings. If there is no match, I suggest a Roth because company 401K plans usually have hidden fees that are much higher than you are going to pay for setting up your own IRA or Roth IRA with a broker." }, { "docid": "399543", "title": "", "text": "Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds." }, { "docid": "234846", "title": "", "text": "&gt;But on the bright side, the most common decade for people to start saving is in their 20s. Twice as many 30 to 49 year olds said they started saving in their 20s instead of their 30s, while the 50 to 64 age group was “only slightly more likely” to have started saving in their 20s over their 30s, according to the report, which surveyed 1,003 adults living in the continental U.S. So they are basing their analysis of how early people start saving purely by studying people in their 30s and 40s with those in their 50s and 60s. They don't compare either of those age groups with those in their 20s and 30s to see how things have changed?" } ]

[ { "docid": "305579", "title": "", "text": "Western Union, Money to India, Remit to India are some of the services that specilize in remittance and would be cheaper than an International Wire. There is not tax for transfering your own money earner outside India into India. Edit: The business of Remittance is bought into the Service Tax Net by Govt. It is seen that Banks are offering this as a service and hence the tax to Banks which is passed on to customers. 0.12% of tax on the converted amount. IE if you transfer Rs 1,00,000/- you would need to pay a tax of Rs 120/-. Above Rs 1,00,000 the incremental rate is 0.06%" } ]

[ { "docid": "501730", "title": "", "text": "Richard Liu gave up a seven-figure salary this month to get into one of the hottest financial instruments around right now: initial coin offerings. The former China Renaissance deal-maker has since backed a clutch of cryptocoin sales that’ve raised millions -- sometimes in seconds -- often without a single product. From Hong Kong and Beijing to London, accomplished financiers are abandoning lucrative careers to plunge into the murky world of ICOs, a way to amass quick money by selling digital tokens to investors sans banks or regulators. Cut out of the action, a growing cohort of banking professionals are instead applying their talents toward buying or hawking cryptocurrency." }, { "docid": "344290", "title": "", "text": "foreign income, transfer it to my savings account in India Yes you can transfer to India. The right account would be NRO/NRE. As an NRI one should not hold a regular savings account. forum that foreign income is not taxable unless used to buy stocks, fds etc If you are an NRI, income earned outside of India is not taxable in India. However any income you generate in India is taxable, i.e. interest income, gains from shares etc. Do we need to pay taxes for the money transferred No tax if you are an NRI even if you transfer funds to India. Taxation does not depend on whether or not you transfer the money, it depends on your status used to pay home EMIs or principle amount? You can use the money for what ever you like." }, { "docid": "313437", "title": "", "text": "I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently." }, { "docid": "358445", "title": "", "text": "\"Many people who do transfer a balance from one credit card to another have no clue as to what is going on and how credit cards work. If you transfer a balance from one credit card to another, you are charged a fee of anywhere from 3% upwards (subject to a minimum of $10 or so) up front. If Credit Card A has balance $1000 and you transfer it to Credit Card B which is offering no interest for a year on the transferred balance, you owe Credit Card B $1050 (say). In most cases, that $50 has to be paid off as part of the following month's bill. If you are carrying a revolving balance on Credit Card B, that $50 will typically be charged interest from the day of the transfer. Your monthly bill will not (necessarily) include that $1000 you owe for one year or six months or whatever the transfer agreement you accepted says. If you tend to pay anything less (even a penny) than full payment of each month's bill on Credit Card B, your partial payment will be applied to that $1000 first, and anything left over will be applied to the monthly balance. In short, if you don't pay in full each month, that $1000 will not be \"\"yours\"\" for a year; you may end up paying $50 interest for borrowing $1000 for just one or two months, and the rest of your balance is the gift that keeps on giving as the credit card company likes to say. UPDATE: This has changed slightly in the United States. Any amount paid over the minimum amount due is charged to the higher-interest balances. So in this case, if you had $1000 at a 0% promotional rate and a regular balance of $500, and the minimum payment was $100, and you paid $150, $100 would pay down the promotional balance, and the extra $50 would pay down the regular balance. About the only way to make the deal work in your favor is to Transfer money only if you have paid the full amount due on the last two statements before the date of the transfer and are not carrying a revolving balance. Check your monthly statements to make sure they show Finance Charge of 0.00. Many people have never seen such a sight and are unaware that this can be observed in nature. Make sure that you pay each month's bill in full (not the minimum monthly payment due) each month for a whole year after that. Make sure that the bill containing that $1000 (coming out a year after the transfer date) is also paid in full. Very many credit-card users do not have the financial discipline to go through with this program. That is why credit card companies love to push transfer balances on consumers: the whole thing is a cash cow for them where they in effect get to charge usurious rates of interest without running afoul of the law. $50 interest for a one-year loan of $1000 is pretty high at current rates; $50 interest for a two or three month loan where the customer does not even notice the screwing he is getting is called laughing all the way to the bank. See also the answers to this question\"" }, { "docid": "368764", "title": "", "text": "You have not mentioned the dates when you left India. Taxability is not depended on whether you transfer the funds to India or NOT. It is dependent on whether you are NRI for tax purposes for the given financial year. Refer to this question for more details Will it be taxable if I transfer money from UK account to India account? Edit: The lottery earnings are also treated in the same way. If you are NRI, you don't pay tax. Else you pay tax" }, { "docid": "438311", "title": "", "text": "if it was not China, then India, Brazil, South Africa, or Russia... the companies want lower taxes and wages, and will go where these are, in Brazil where I live there is a Shenzhen and Hong Kong equivalent(Polo de manaus), but never boomed because China had even lower wages and taxes, if the taxes were lower maybe the factories would come back but I doubt. simplify the law and the taxes would be enough of a change for a start. each day america looks closer to Brazil's 16 metric tons of taxes law and 69% corporate taxes" }, { "docid": "513052", "title": "", "text": "&gt; People like Faber are white fear defined. He lives in Thailand. He has also lived in Singapore &amp; Hong Kong, having moved to the East in 1973. For someone with so much 'fear', he surrounds himself with a hell of a lot of non-whites on purpose." }, { "docid": "80657", "title": "", "text": "I want to transfer about 60 Lakhs INR from my NRO account in India to my US bank account Yes you can. However there is some paperwork you need to follow. As per FEMA [Foreign Exchange Management Act], any transfer by individuals outside of India need the 15CA & 15CB form. The 15CB is from a CA to state that taxes have been paid on the funds being transferred. The limit is 1 million USD per year. Read more at Liberalized Remittance Scheme and here. What is the best way to transfer it with minimum fees/taxes Assuming you were already declaring the funds held in Banks outside of US in your regular IRS filings, there is no other formality. Question on Minimum fees service recommendation is out of scope on this site. Outward remittance can only be done by Bank Transfer." }, { "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": "169598", "title": "", "text": "Best consult a CA as you may anyway need his/her service. I am NRI, availed secured loan (Against house property) in India and now I want to get that money transferred to Finland. Loans by NRI taken in India cannot be transferred outside of India. Refer FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANAGEMENT (BORROWING AND LENDING IN RUPEES) REGULATIONS Loans in Rupees to non-residents 1[***]. 7. Subject to the directions issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time in this regard, an authorised dealer in India may grant loan to a non-resident Indian, (B) against the security of immovable property (other than agricultural or plantation property or farm house), held by him in accordance with the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulations, 2000 : ...... Provided that- (d) the loan amount shall not be remitted outside India; Alternative: Sell the property in India, transfer the proceeds to NRO account. Repatriate the funds outside India as per Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Form 15CA/CB with CA certificate will be required." }, { "docid": "168130", "title": "", "text": "Capital International Business Center is one of the first business centers in Hong Kong that providing one-stop business services like temporary offices, meeting rooms, registration service, virtual office. The company is the first to receive an ISO9002 service quality certification in Hong Kong and one of the first to establish a full-service system." }, { "docid": "385236", "title": "", "text": "\"You, Sir, have no idea what is going on here in Hong Kong. It is amusing to hear American Apple fans proclaim so confidently that \"\"Apple knows\"\". At least Asian Apple fans have the numbers against them so they shut the fuck up with the pronouncements about divine insight by the one true phone-maker.\"" }, { "docid": "331253", "title": "", "text": "Only in foreign ports. For example Cathay Pacific is based out Hong Kong, it will employ staff to do everything from check in to cleaning. When they fly into overseas ports they will contract other airlines or menzies etc to do their ground handling." }, { "docid": "452384", "title": "", "text": "Can she send money to me in India through their NRI account? She can transfer the money to her NRE account and then to your Savings Account. Alternatively she can also transfer money directly to your savings account. There is no tax for this transaction in India as it is gift and exempt under gift tax act. If the amounts are large [run in quite a few tens of lacs], have some paperwork showing this as Gift. You can transfer this to son or doing anything you like with it." }, { "docid": "472681", "title": "", "text": "India and the United States have a tax treaty agreement whereby double taxation is avoided. However check with your accountant in the US who should be able to guide you further in this regard. It is now easier to transfer money out of India. As long as the source of the money is legal and can be verified. So if you decide to sell a property, get payments by way of documented bank transactions like cheques and avoid cash deals. Once taxes are paid money can usually be transferred out." }, { "docid": "44609", "title": "", "text": "But not until we have shipped the last manufacturing job left in America there and then wondered why we did all that packing up and shipping over and training and learning new language and moving the family to Hong Kong and hating it there...only to make themselves look like heros by coming back from whence they never should have left." }, { "docid": "200425", "title": "", "text": "\"Any inward remittance received by your Parents cannot be treated as \"\"Income\"\" as per the definitaion. This can at best be treated as \"\"Gift\"\". However in India there is No Gift tax for certain relations and there is no ceiling on the amount. In your case gifting of money by son to father or viceversa is allowed without any limits and tax implication. However if you father were to invest this money in his name and make gains, the gains would be taxable. However if the Money is being transfered with specific purpose such as to buy a property, etc make sure you have the Bank give your dad an certificate of Inward remittance. This is also advisable even otherwise, the Inwared Remittance certificate from Bank certifies that the credit entry in the account is because or funds comming into India and if the tax authorities were to question the large amount of credits, it would be proof that it is due to Inward remittance and not due to say a sale of property by your dad Helpful Links: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/tax/gift-tax-whatsa-gift_664238.html http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/bline/blnri/exp-tax.htm Edit 1: What you father does with the money is treated as EXPENSE, ie spends on day to day expense or pays off your Loans or Pay off his loans have no relevance from a Tax Prespective in India. The only issue comes in say you have transfered the funds to buy a property and there was no purpose of remittance specified by Bank's letter and one want to reptriate this funds back to US, then its an issue. If you transfer the funds directly to your Loan account again there is no tax implication to you in India as you are NRI.\"" }, { "docid": "561123", "title": "", "text": "\"While you would probably not use your ATM card to buy a $1M worth mansion, I've heard urban legends about people who bought a house on a credit card. While can't say its reliable, I wouldn't be surprised that some have actual factual basis. I myself had put a car down-payment on my credit card, and had I paid the sticker price, the dealer would definitely have no problem with putting the whole car on the credit card (and my limits would allow it, even for a luxury brand). The instruments are the same. There's nothing special you need to have to pay a million dollars. You just write a lot of zeroes on your check, but you don't need a special check for that. Large amounts of money are transferred electronically (wire-transfers), which is also something that \"\"regular\"\" people do once or twice in their lives. What might be different is the way these purchases are financed. Rich people are not necessarily rich with cash. Most likely, they're rich with equity: own something that's worth a lot. In this case, instead of a mortgage secured by the house, they can take a loan secured by the stocks they own. This way, they don't actually cash out of the investment, yet get cash from its value. It is similarly to what we, regular mortals, do with our equity in primary residence and HELOCs. So it is not at all uncommon that a billionaire will in fact have tons of money owed in loans. Why? Because the billions owned are owned through stock valuation, and the cash used is basically a loan secured by these stocks. It might happen that the stocks securing the loans become worthless, and that will definitely be a problem both to the (now ex-)billionaire and the bank. But until then, they can get cash from their investment without cashing out and without paying taxes. And if they're lucky enough to die before they need to repay the loans - they saved tons on money on taxes.\"" }, { "docid": "424427", "title": "", "text": "Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis. The above rules apply to your basis in your Traditional IRA as well. After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage. However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution. If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions. Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you. But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts. What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA." } ]

[ { "docid": "431685", "title": "", "text": "You don't need to notify the IRS of new members, the IRS doesn't care (at this stage). What you do need, if you have a EIN for a single-member LLC, is to request a new EIN since your LLC is now a partnership (a different entity, from IRS perspective). From now on, you'll need to file form 1065 with the IRS in case of business related income, on which you will declare the membership distribution interests on Schedules K-1 for each member." } ]

[ { "docid": "147853", "title": "", "text": "\"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the \"\"countable resources, such as a bank account\"\" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the \"\"Special rule for parent\"\", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as \"\"head of household\"\", so long as you pay more than half their support, and \"\"more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father\"\". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father \"\"part of your household\"\" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's.\"" }, { "docid": "361978", "title": "", "text": "I know that there are a lot service on the internet helping to form an LLC online with a fee around $49. Is it neccessarry to pay them to have an LLC or I can do that myself? No, you can do it yourself. The $49 is for your convenience, but there's nothing they can do that you wouldn't be able to do on your own. What I need to know and what I need to do before forming an LLC? You need to know that LLC is a legal structure that is designed to provide legal protections. As such, it is prudent to talk to a legal adviser, i.e.: a Virginia-licensed attorney. Is it possible if I hire some employees who living in India? Is the salary for my employees a expense? Do I need to claim this expense? This, I guess, is entirely unrelated to your questions about LLC. Yes, it is possible. The salary you pay your employees is your expense. You need to claim it, otherwise you'd be inflating your earnings which in certain circumstances may constitute fraud. What I need to do to protect my company? For physical protection, you'd probably hire a security guard. If you're talking about legal protections, then again - talk to a lawyer. What can I do to reduce taxes? Vote for a politician that promises to reduce taxes. Most of them never deliver though. Otherwise you can do what everyone else is doing - tax planning. That is - plan ahead your expenses, time your invoices and utilize tax deferral programs etc. Talk to your tax adviser, who should be a EA or a CPA licensed in Virginia. What I need to know after forming an LLC? You'll need to learn what are the filing requirements in your State (annual reports, tax reports, business taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). Most are the same for same proprietors and LLCs, so you probably will not be adding to much extra red-tape. Your attorney and tax adviser will help you with this, but you can also research yourself on the Virginia department of corporations/State department (whichever deals with LLCs)." }, { "docid": "461527", "title": "", "text": "No, always give the most current address information to the IRS, not least because they will use this address to send you important communications, such as refund checks or notices of deficiency. Per the 1040 Instructions, you should put in your address, with no mention of past addresses. Moreover, if you will change addresses after filing, the IRS has provided Form 8822 to notify them of the new address. There is a similar Form 8822-B for business addresses. They will use your Social Security Number (SSN), Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), or Employer Identification Number (EIN) to track who you are. There's no point to purposely giving an invalid address, and in fact it's technically illegal since you will sign and certify the return as true and accurate to the best of your knowledge." }, { "docid": "214878", "title": "", "text": "If they really want cash, you notify your bank in advance of the amount and have it put in your account, then you both sign the paperwork at the bank and after everything is signed you have the bank hand them the money. Guarding it after that is entirely their problem. Personally, I would consider this a stupid request and tell them to have their lawyer discuss it with my lawyer in the hope they can be talked out of it. As far as where to get the money: Same as for any purchase, find a bank willing to write a mortgage for you on this new house. What you choose to do about the other two houses is an independent question. You can sell one or both, but that may take money so you probably won't finish doing so before needing to pay for the new house. Of course when they do sell you can use the money toward paying down/paying off the new mortgage." }, { "docid": "37133", "title": "", "text": "\"withdraw in cash - bank reports it to IRS no matter what. Would this affect my tax filing in the coming year? No, and no. The bank doesn't report to the IRS. In the US - the bank will probably report to FinCEN. It has nothing to do with your tax return. withdraw in check - bank does not seem to report it. Is this correct? Doesn't have to. Still might, if they think it is a suspicious/irregular activity. wire-transfer to another person's account - would this always be slapped with a \"\"gift tax\"\"? If this is a gift it would. Regardless of how you transfer the money. Is it? Answers to your follow up questions: In the US, what documents do we need to prepare in case our large sum withdraw from the bank triggers a flag in relevant government (local and/or federal) divisions and they decide to investigate? Depending on what the investigators request. FinCEN would investigate money laundering, the IRS would investigate tax evasion, the FBI would investigate terrorism sponsorship, etc. Depending on who's investigating and what the suspicions are - different documents may be required. But the bottom line is that you should be able to explain the source of the funds and the destination. For example \"\"I found $1M in cash and sent it to some drug lord because he's such a good friend of mine\"\" will probably not fly. Does the (local/federal) government care if we stash our money (in cash or check) under our mattress, if we purchase foreign properties (taxable? documents needed for proof?), or if we give it away (to individuals or organizations - individual: a gift tax, organization: tax waivable) ? The government cares about taxes, and illegal activities. Stashing money under a mattress is not illegal, but earning cash and not paying income tax on it usually is. In many cases money stashed under the mattress was obtained illegally and/or income taxes were not paid. It seems that no matter what we do (except spreading thin our assets to multiple accounts in multiple banks), the government will always be notified of any large bank transaction and we would be forever flagged since. Is this correct ? Yes, reportable transactions will be reported. Also spreading around in multiple accounts/transactions to avoid reporting is called \"\"structuring\"\" and is on its own a crime. This is for cash/cash equivalent transactions only, of course. Not sure about the \"\"forever flagged since\"\", that part is probably sourced in your imagination.\"" }, { "docid": "484470", "title": "", "text": "The answer lies entirely with how the loan paperwork reads. The way I'd set it up, there's would need to be a large enough downpayment so the bank was willing to offer a loan strictly to the LLC with non-recourse to the members." }, { "docid": "254158", "title": "", "text": "The LLC will file its own business taxes which may or may not have business level income and expenses. At the end, the LLC will issue Schedule K-1 tax forms to the members, that based on their percentage ownership, will reflect the percentage share of the income/losses. From an individual standpoint, the members need only worry about the K-1 form they receive. This has quite a few pass-through categories from the LLC, but the Income/Loss may be the only used one. The individual will likely include the K-1 by filing a Schedule-E along with their 1040 form. The 1040 Schedule-E has some ability to deduct expenses as an individual. Generally it's best not to commingle expenses. Additional schedule-E expense reporting is generally for non-reimbursed, but related business expenses. If a member paid certain fees for the LLC, it is better for the LLC to reimburse him and then deduct the expense properly. Schedule-E is on a non-LLC, personal level." }, { "docid": "131483", "title": "", "text": "The LLC will not be liable for anything, it is disregarded for tax purposes. If you're doing any work while in the US, or you (or your spouse) are a green card holder or a US citizen - then you (not the LLC) may be liable, may be required to file, pay, etc. Unless you're employing someone, or have more than one member in your LLC, you do not need an EIN. Re the bank - whatever you want. If you want you can open an account in an American bank. If you don't - don't. Who cares?" }, { "docid": "372909", "title": "", "text": "\"What exactly would the financial institution need to see to make them comfortable with these regulations The LLC Operating Agreement. The OA should specify the member's allocation of equity, assets, income and loss, and of course - managerial powers and signature authorities. In your case - it should say that the LLC is single-member entity and the single member has all the managerial powers and authorities - what is called \"\"member-managed\"\". Every LLC is required to have an operating agreement, although you don't necessarily have to file it with the State or record it. If you don't have your own OA, default rules will apply, depending on your State law. However, the bank will probably not take you as a customer without an explicit OA.\"" }, { "docid": "234615", "title": "", "text": "I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me. The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election." }, { "docid": "315086", "title": "", "text": "Is the business an S-Corp, LLC or Sole Prop? I am going to guess based on the question that it is an LLC that you never closed with the state and you live in a state (NY) that charges a fee for having an LLC in the state in which case you owe those fees to the state. I am not aware of any taxes on the mere existence of a business by the IRS. I think you are going to find out that the are no taxes owed to the IRS for this nonexistent activity." }, { "docid": "325677", "title": "", "text": "Mods decided to leave it here, so I'll summarize some of my answers on this question given @OnStartups. You can find them here, here and here. Your options are : You and your business are one and the same. You report your income and expenses for taxes on a Schedule C (for each sole proprietorship a separate schedule), and taxed at your personal rates. There's no liability protection or legal separation between you and your business, and you don't need to have any bureaucratic overhead of managing an entity. You can use your own bank account and have checks written to you directly. You can register for DBA if you want a store-front name to be different from your own name. Depending on State, can cost a lot or close to nothing. Provides certain liability protection (depending on State, single-member and multi-member LLC's may have different liability protections). You can chose to be taxed as either a sole-proprietor (partnership, for multi-member) or as a corporation. You have to separate your activities, have a separate bank account, and some minimal bureaucracy is required to maintain the entity. Benefits include the limited liability, relatively easy to add partners to the business or sell it as a whole, and provides for separation of your personal and business finances. Drawbacks - bureaucracy, additional fees and taxes (especially in CA), and separation of assets. Corporation is an entirely separate entity from yourself, files its own tax returns, has separate bank accounts and is run by the board of directors (which in some cases may require more than 1 person to be on the board, check your state laws on that). As an officer of the corporation you'll have to pay salary to yourself. S-Corp has the benefit of pass-through taxation, C-Corp doesn't and has double taxation. Benefits - liability protection, can sell shares to investors, legally distinct entity. Disadvantages - have to deal with payroll, additional accounting, significant bureaucracy and additional layer of taxes for C-Corp (double taxation). Selling corporate assets is always a taxable event (although in your case it is probably not of an importance). You have to talk to a lawyer in your state about the options re the liability protection and how to form the entities. The formation process is usually simple and straight forward, but the LLC/Partnership operating agreements and Corporation charters/bylaws must be drafted by a lawyer if you're not going to be the sole owner (even if you are - better get a lawyer draft something for you, its just easier to fix and change things when you're the sole owner). You have to talk to a CPA/EA in your state about the taxes and how the choice of entity affects them." }, { "docid": "106684", "title": "", "text": "I'm not sure 1099-MISC is what you should expect. Equity means ownership, and in LLC context it means membership. As an LLC member, you'll get distributions and should receive a K-1 form for tax treatment, not 1099 or W2. If the CEO is talking about 1099 it means he's going to hire you as a contractor which contradicts the statement about equity allocation. That's an entirely different situation. 1) Specifically, would the 1099-MISC form be used in this case? 1099-MISC is used to describe various payments. Depending on which box is filled, the tax treatment may be as of employment income (subject to SE taxes) or passive income (royalties, rents, etc - subject to various limitations in the tax code). 3) If this is the only logical method of compensation (receiving a % of real estate sales), how would it be taxed? That would probably be a commission and taxed as employment income. I suggest to get a professional tax adviser consultation on this issue, with specific details, numbers, and kinds of deals involved. You can get gain or lose a lot of money just because you're characterized as a contractor and not LLC member or employee (each has its own benefits and disadvantages, and you have to consider them all). 4) Are there any advantages/disadvantages to acquiring and selling properties through the company as opposed to receiving a % of sales? Yes. There are advantages and there are disadvantages. For example, if you're using a corporation, you can get salary, if you're a contractor you cannot. There are a lot of issues hidden in this distinction (which I've just discussed with KeithS in this argument)." }, { "docid": "446870", "title": "", "text": "Generally, unless you explicitly elect otherwise, LLCs are transparent when it comes to taxes. So the money in the LLC is your money for tax purposes, there's no need to pay yourself a salary. In fact, the concept of salary for LLC members doesn't exist at all. It is either distributions or guaranteed payments (and even that is mostly relevant to multi-member LLCs). The only concern is the separation of personal and LLC finances - avoiding commingling. Mixing your personal and business expenses by using the same accounts/cards for both business and personal spending may cause troubles when it comes to the liability protection in case of a lawsuit. I'd suggest discussing this with a FL-licensed attorney. Bottom line - technically the withdrawal is just writing yourself a check from the business account or moving money between your personal and business accounts. If you're a sole member - you need not more than that. Make sure the operating agreement explicitly empowers you to do that, of course. There are no tax consequences, but as I mentioned - there may be legal consequences." }, { "docid": "328341", "title": "", "text": "An LLC does not pay taxes on profits. As regards tax a LLC is treated as a Partnership, but instead of partners they are called members. The LLC is a passthrough entity. As in Partnerships members can have a different percentage ownership to the share of profits. The LLC reports the share of the profits of the members. Then the members pay the tax as an individual. The profit of the LLC is deemed to have been transferred to the members regardless of any funds transferred. This is often the case as the LLC may need to retain the profits for use in the business. Late paying customers may mean there is less cash in the LLC than is available to distribute. The first answer is wrong, only a C corporation files a tax return. All other corporate structures are passthrough entities. The C corporation pays corporation tax and is not required to pass any funds to the shareholders. If the C corporation passes funds to the shareholders this is a dividend, and taxable to the shareholder, hence double taxation." }, { "docid": "59686", "title": "", "text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member)." }, { "docid": "213185", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Hey, sole proprietorships called A sole proprietorship could incorporate as a Single Member LLC and elect to be taxed as a corporation. But you would still be subject to both sides of the FICA/Medicare taxes. &gt;and they're going to suck out five percent MORE of my GROSS How exactly does a LLC suck out 5% more of your gross? &gt;your payroll costs go through the roof. Again, payroll expenses are generally tax deductible. I'm just trying to help you here." }, { "docid": "97083", "title": "", "text": "\"especially considering it has a mortgage on it (technically a home equity loan on my primary residence). I'm not following. Does it have a mortgage on it, or your primary residence (a different property) was used as a security for the loan? If it is HELOC from a different property - then it is really your business what to do with it. You can spend it all on casinos in Vegas for all that the bank cares. Is this a complicated transaction? Any gotchas I should be aware of before embarking on it? Obviously you should talk to an attorney and a tax adviser. But here's my two cents: Don't fall for the \"\"incorporate in Nevada/Delaware/Wyoming/Some other lie\"\" trap. You must register in the State where you live, and in the State where the property is. Incorporating in any other State will just add complexity and costs, and will not save you anything whatsoever. 2.1 State Taxes - some States tax LLCs. For example, in California you'll pay at least $800 a year just for the right of doing business. If you live in California or the property is in California - you will pay this if you decide to set up an LLC. 2.2 Income taxes - make sure to not elect to tax your LLC as a corporation. The default for LLC is \"\"disregarded\"\" status and it will be taxed for income tax purposes as your person. I.e.: IRS doesn't care and doesn't know about it (and most States, as well). If you actively select to tax it as a corporation (there's such an option) - it will cost you very dearly. So don't, and if someone suggest such a thing to you - run away from that person as fast as you can. Mortgages - it is very hard to get a mortgage when the property is under the LLC. If you already have a mortgage on that property (the property is the one securing the loan) - it may get called once you transfer it into LLC, since from bank's perspective that would be transferring ownership. Local taxes - transferring into LLC may trigger a new tax assessment. If you just bought the property - that will probably not matter much. If it appreciated - you may get hit with higher property taxes. There are also many little things - once you're a LLC and not individual you'll have to open a business bank account, will probably need a new insurance policy, etc etc. These don't add much to costs and are more of an occasional nuisance.\"" }, { "docid": "341258", "title": "", "text": "If you have a single-member LLC that is treated as a disregarded entity (i.e. you didn't elect to be taxed as a corporation), and that LLC had no activity, you're off the hook for federal reporting. The LLC's activity would normally be reported on your personal tax return on a Schedule C. If the LLC had under $400 in taxable earnings, no Schedule C is needed. So an inactive LLC does not have a tax reporting requirement. (If you had taxable income but under $400, you include that amount on your 1040 but don't need a Schedule C.) In Texas, you still must file a Texas franchise tax report every year, even for a single-member LLC with no activity." } ]

[ { "docid": "584337", "title": "", "text": "It's provincial jurisdiction, so it can vary by province. In Manitoba, it's different when an employee quits vs. being terminated: Quiting: Being terminated: Edit: At least in Manitoba, according to the above link, an employer can't set different notice periods. Effective April 30, 2007, employers cannot have alternate notice policies. A notice policy set under the previous legislation is not valid. The only exclusion is a unionized workplace, where a collective agreement has a probationary period that is one year or less. Ontario, on the other hand doesn't have anything legislated about resignation notice except under a couple very specific circumstances. This leaves it open for contracts to put in place their own requirements. In this case, you can be sued for provable losses (minus the savings from not having to pay you.)" } ]

[ { "docid": "67625", "title": "", "text": "It appears your company is offering roughly a 25% discount on its shares. I start there as a basis to give you a perspective on what the 30% matching offer means to you in terms of value. Since you are asking for things to consider not whether to do it, below are a few considerations (there may be others) in general you should think about your sources of income. if this company is your only source of income, it is more prudent to make your investment in their shares a smaller portion of your overall investment/savings strategy. what is the holding period for the shares you purchase. some companies institute a holding period or hold duration which restricts when you can sell the shares. Generally, the shorter the duration period the less risk there is for you. So if you can buy the shares and immediately sell the shares that represents the least amount of relative risk. what are the tax implications for shares offered at such a discount. this may be something you will need to consult a tax adviser to get a better understanding. your company should also be able to provide a reasonable interpretation of the tax consequences for the offering as well. is the stock you are buying liquid. liquid, in this case, is just a fancy term for asking how many shares trade in a public market daily. if it is a very liquid stock you can have some confidence that you may be able to sell out of your shares when you need. personally, i would review the company's financial statements and public statements to investors to get a better understanding of their competitive positioning, market size and prospects for profitability and growth. given you are a novice at this it may be good idea to solicit the opinion of your colleagues at work and others who have insight on the financial performance of the company. you should consider other investment options as well. since this seems to be your first foray into investing you should consider diversifying your savings into a few investments areas (such as big market indices which typically should be less volatile). last, there is always the chance that your company could fail. Companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers and many others that were much smaller than those two examples have failed in the past. only you can gauge your tolerance for risk. As a young investor, the best place to start is to use index funds which track a broader universe of stocks or bonds as the first step in building an investment portfolio. once you own a good set of index funds you can diversify with smaller investments." }, { "docid": "593820", "title": "", "text": "Inflation is good for the economy primarily because it is an incentive to invest. If inflation is occurring, then keeping your holdings in cash is a net loser; 5% inflation means that in a year, your $100 is now worth $95.24 (1/1.05), so unless you're getting really good interest, that's a bad thing. On the other hand, if you invested that $100 in a business, you can outgain inflation more easily since inflation should drive the business's profits. Deflation (negative inflation), on the other hand, is bad for investing because it encourages holding cash. If deflation of 5% occurs, then you can get a 5% ROI by simply holding onto twenty dollar bills; why would you invest in a business that was in a deflationary economy (and thus would likely earn less money)? Mild inflation also increases flexibility in the economy, because businesses make a little more money (in terms of denominated money); that allows them more flexibility in expansion. Salaries for some also go up, meaning that spending goes up, and often with more flexibility in how those salaries are spent; inflation doesn't hit all sectors exactly the same, so often this leaves significant portions of the middle class with more money to spend (and thus driving economic growth). More than salary growth, though, inflation seems to drive job creation. From the New York Times, this article quotes a paper by George Akerloff which shows that job creation tends to be more significant than rising salaries during periods of low inflation (ie, what we're talking about here). Salary increases will come here largely from job seeking rather than raises, because businesses don't tend to cut wages and thus are reticent to significantly raise salaries; they'd rather just hire more people, and then cut jobs when the economy weakens (or inflation drops). This is even more true in low wage jobs, such as minimum wage positions, where wages cannot be cut but salary increases have little real effect on job retention; it's easier to change the number of hours for PT employees, or the number of PT/FT employees. Deflation, on the other hand, leads to decreased flexibility, layoffs, and lower consumer spending. While it sounds good to say 'hey, prices are going down!' to your average consumer, you have to keep in mind that those prices are what keep the businesses going that drive our economy and pay your salary (either directly or indirectly). If your employer started making 5% less per year, do you think they'd keep you employed? Maybe not, and at the bottom (service industries, fast food restaurants, grocers, etc.) there would be significant cutbacks if deflation hit them. I would note that 5% inflation is probably a bit high; most economists like 2% to 3%, and the Federal Reserve has said that 2% is the right target. They're mostly concerned with avoiding deflation, as that's a big risk to the economy; the advantages of mild inflation are relatively minor, compared to the damages of deflation, and tend to be more correlations (you get mild inflation in a good economy, as much or more than you need mild inflation for a good economy). Most important, probably, is consistent inflation. Consumers and businesses can act rationally if the inflation rate is relatively stable and predictable. When inflation jumps or drops, it changes the potential outcomes for choices made by investors, consumers, and businesses, meaning choices they made in the past are now suboptimal; if the inflation rate is jumping around (1% one year, 4% another, -1% the next) investors, businesses, and consumers will be relatively conservative in their choices, which leads to a bad economy." }, { "docid": "284483", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Shouldn't all pieces from think tanks be thoroughly fact-checked? &gt; Whether it be CATO, Center for American Progress, Brookings, Heritage, or AEI, it seems reckless to me to publish their pieces without fact-checking. I agree. Nothing that gets published as news should escape fact-checking. This goes double for opinion pieces. This is an inevitable consequence of treating journalism as merely stenography, reporting what is said without consideration for accuracy. However, &gt; I don't even fault Stephen Moore for this. His job is to spread certain economic views.(ones that I tend to disagree with strongly, but that's his job) I don't think anyone's job is to simply spread an economic, political or any other view. I think any job involving analysis should include an imperative to make sure the views expressed are supported by facts, not to filter or alter the facts to favor a view. The latter is what Moore has been doing." }, { "docid": "345388", "title": "", "text": "I would pass on their deal if they will only match if you invest in their stock. Think about when/if the company falls on bad times. What happens to the stock of a company when bad times come? The board of directors will reduce or eliminate the dividend payout. Current and potential investors will take notice. Current owners of the stock will sell. Potential investors will avoid buying. The price of the stock with go down. And, quite likely, the company will lay off workers. If/when that happens you would find yourself without a job and holding (almost) worthless stock as your savings. That would be quite a bad situation to be in." }, { "docid": "37262", "title": "", "text": "\"Are you not allowed the y5 option? I'm no guru, but one thing that sticks out to me in that plan is the vesting period of 5yrs as opposed to 10, so the money is \"\"yours\"\" in half the time....so if after 5yrs, you find a better gig, you can roll those benefits into another account and manage them on your own (or just leave and draw on them when you are eligible) Then again, knowing that many municipalities are in shit shape due to their pension benefit liabilities, they may be pushing to the longer vesting period to a) encourage you to stay employed there and/or b) allow them to keep the money should you leave before that 10yr period Like I said, though- I'm def no guru, and that is only one aspect of these plans. I'd personally reach out to a financial planner so they can game it all out for you and equip you with the info to make the best choice\"" }, { "docid": "308967", "title": "", "text": "\"In June 2016 the American Institute of CPAs sent a letter to the IRS requesting guidance on this question. Quoting from section 4 of this letter, which is available at https://www.aicpa.org/advocacy/tax/downloadabledocuments/aicpa-comment-letter-on-notice-2014-21-virtual-currency-6-10-16.pdf If the IRS believes any property transaction rules should apply differently to virtual currency than to other types of property, taxpayers will need additional guidance in order to properly distinguish the rules and regulations. Section 4, Q&A-1 of Notice 2014-21 states that “general tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency,” which is guidance that is generally helpful in determining the tax consequences of most virtual currency transactions. However, if there are particular factors that distinguish one virtual currency as like-kind to another virtual currency for section 1031 purposes, the IRS should clarify these details (e.g., allowing the treatment of virtual currency held for investment or business as like-kind to another virtual currency) in the form of published guidance. Similarly, taxpayers need specific guidance of special rules or statutory interpretations if the IRS determines that the installment method of section 453 is applied differently for virtual currency than for other types of property. So, at the very least, a peer-reviewed committee of CPAs finds like-kind treatment to have possible grounds for allowance. I would disagree with calling this a \"\"loophole,\"\" however (edit: at least from the viewpoint of the taxpayer.) At a base technological level, a virtual currency-to-virtual currency exchange consists of exchanging knowledge of one sequence of binary digits (private key) for another. What could be more \"\"like-kind\"\" than this?\"" }, { "docid": "240937", "title": "", "text": "Iceland had slaves during their 'libertarian' period, so I don't particularly care to look to them as a cultural example. Don't know much about the libertarian societies in Ireland. I also don't romanticize Native American societies, either, which, on their smaller scale, had their own problems and violence. Also, I qualified examples with my last sentence, saying we haven't seen it work on a large scale yet, which, with a population in the billions, is the order of the day for now. &gt;All this to say: Somolia isn't a valid argument against libertarianism. :) True enough. I just like to poke the sleeping bear sometimes, because honestly, I don't much respect anarcho capitalists, much in the same way I don't respect hardcore communists: it sounds great in theory, in reality it doesn't seem to work well when the rubber meets the road." }, { "docid": "121195", "title": "", "text": "What I am taking away from this comment and the reply to it is that a greater level of communication with the client to understand that what and how we support them so they have a greater level of respect for the work we do. Your work relies on the technology to function and as such we do make you money, because without us your crew can't work. We have a number of clients who get that, but we also have a few that act extremely rudely to our staff when we are trying to help. The condescending attitude of how dare we not go faster, because they have important things to do gets tiring. I would never see our doing our jobs as a favor to a client. We're in partnership in the business relationship." }, { "docid": "374735", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Ask the guy who guessed Sarah Palin's email password how that theory worked out. Breaking into someones private email is hardly comparable. *Target* made the rule that coupons could not be used this way, and then *Target* allowed it. It is like telling a man not to fish on Thursday, but when he asks again on Friday you allow it, is that man a crook? Printing the coupons and using more than one is difficult to defend, though that in itself does not prove injury. A customer could hypothetically gather a large group of people, having each of them use the coupon, achieving the same end without breaking the TOS. Would that also be fraud. Where then is the injury if every consequence to target is the same, yet no one person cheated? Now, if the situation was a cashier and customer working together to abuse the system, I would say it is absolutely criminal activity. Target had knowledge of the thread in some form, they sent a notice to the website asking for a logo to be removed from the same thread in question. Maybe it was just a copyright hound, and maybe the information was not passed on. That is unclear as you stated. In the end I would say target is certainly aware now, and if any legal action is taken against these people we can find out for sure if what they did was criminal. The courts can decide the outcome and I will accept it either way. EDIT: Grammar, formatting." }, { "docid": "515394", "title": "", "text": "Do yourself a favor: calculate the price of airfare, calculate how many points it takes to get a good flight, and calculate how many points you get per dollar spent. What you will find is that it is a ripoff. Leave the card at home and unlink it from your online purchasing accounts. You're welcome. If you really want to earn rewards, just put your necessary bills on that card. Over time it will accumulate, but do the math first so you can weigh the consequences." }, { "docid": "140795", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;I was rooting for the cancer. If you can't figure out by 30 that basic decency not only is intrinsically good, but is also in your own self interest you don't deserve the basic respect of others. Your post is so hilariously ironic. Are you under 30? Because you obviously must have not figured out that basic decency is intrinsically good, or else you wouldn't be 'rooting for the cancer.' So much for being a non-shitty human. &gt;Shitty humans do more damage to the planet on a day to day basis than any \"\"genius\"\" does good. Where does this claim even come from? &gt;This stupid prick took an existing technology, dumbed it down to attract the stupid, and prettied it up to attract the narcissistic. Jobs was an asshole, but he was also an amazing individual in a lot of other respectable ways. I used to dislike him because he came off extremely arrogant in interviews, but after watching several documentaries, I came to respect him a lot. It's so easy to sit back in your arm chair and call him a stupid prick who \"\"only\"\" took existing technology and prettied it up to attract the narcissist idiots, but at the end of the day, Apple would not be what it is today without Jobs' relentless drive for success. Whatever he did, he was very good at it. To write him off as if he just got lucky by putting 2+2 together is just idiotic.\"" }, { "docid": "594122", "title": "", "text": "If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Yes for every buyer there is a seller. The inflows are not being talked in that respect. about there being $25B in inflows to US equity markets since the election...what does that mean? Lets say the index was at X. After a month the index is at X+100. So lets say there are only 10 companies listed. So if the Index has moved X to X+100, then share price S1 has moved to S1+d1. So if you sum all such shares/trades that have increased in value, you will get what in inflow. In the same period there could be some shares that have lost value. i.e. the price or another share was S2 and has moved to S2-d2. The sum of all such shares/trades that have decreased in value, you will get outflow. The terms are Gross outflow, Gross inflow. In Net terms for a period, it can only be Inflow or outflow; depending on the difference between inflow and outflow. The stats are done day to day and aggregated for the time period required. So generally if the index has increased, it means there is more inflow and less outflow. At times this analysis is also done on segments, FI's inflow is more compared to outflow or compared to inflow of NBFI or Institutional investors or Foreign participants etc." }, { "docid": "535357", "title": "", "text": "A 529 plan is set up in a specific beneficiary's name but the money can be rolled over or transferred into another 529 plan in the same beneficiary's name, or the beneficiary can be changed by the owner of the account. I mistakenly believed that the new beneficiary could be anyone else, but as mhoran_psprep has pointed out in the comment below, the new beneficiary must be related to the previous one in specific ways as detailed in Publication 970 2011, Tax Benefits for Education in order for the change to occur without any tax consequences. So my original statement that distributions can be used for anyone's educational expense without tax consequences was incorrect; if the new beneficiary is not related to the original beneficiary, tax consequences will indeed occur. Note also that unlike IRAs where the entire amount can be withdrawn by the owner without incurring a 10% penalty after a certain period or after reaching a certain age, distributions from a 529 plan for nonqualified expenses (including as a special case a withdrawal of funds by the owner) will incur the 10% penalty tax regardless of when this occurs. The problem with UGMA accounts is that you have to turn the money over to the beneficiary when that beneficiary becomes an adult (18 years old in most cases) regardless of your current opinion of that beneficiary, and the beneficiary is free to use the money to buy a motorcycle with it if she chooses instead of using it for her education. In this sense, I agree with mhoran_psprep's answer that it is best to put away the money in an ordinary account without seeking tax benefits, and deal with the matter as you see fit when the niece is filling out her college paperwork." }, { "docid": "546801", "title": "", "text": "How are unions leverage in this situation? The jobs demonstrably *can* be done elsewhere, the questions is one total cost (both monetary and with respect to other factors, such as quality, timeliness, and intangibles such as company reputation and public opinion). Unions are great when the jobs are not easily mobile, or when the issues at hand are legal and the collective resources of the union allows for more effective legal action. They're also effective when the issues are incremental (i.e. of relatively low overall cost), because the union serves (almost by definition) to organize and focus the resources of the group into addressing the groups concerns and desires. The only *really* effective leverage is to have a skill set that is costly to replace." }, { "docid": "502281", "title": "", "text": "As somebody that hasn't lived in areas where agriculture is present, I'm genuinely curious. Let's say I'm a recent high school graduate looking at jobs that are available to me. What room for advancement is there if I decide to start picking crops? Isn't that seasonal work? Could I count on a job that pays year round? My impression is that lots of labor is needed for short periods of time when it comes to picking crops but that the jobs are temporary, which I can't imagine makes them particularly attractive to potential hires." }, { "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": "71382", "title": "", "text": "Both the PS3 and the PS4 allows the user to swap the HDD for an SSD without voiding the warranty and step-by-step details can be found in their respective instruction manuals and online. Their examples assume you are merely swapping between different HDD but and SSD is equally suited for these systems. Only problem, if you can call it that, is that these consoles and their games are already designed so that the storage drive isnt a massive bottlenecks but you still see a few seconds of speed improvements. Like instead of 15 second load time you see 13-14. Probably noticeable but its not a mind blowing difference and a casual user would probably not notice. If we were talking about 50% reductions it would be something most people would notice. Its also worth mentioning that all old cart based system are SSD systems and work by you switching SSDs to play different games. These systems had extremely fast loading times but also far smaller storage when compared to disc based systems. SSD and Hybrid SSD speed tests by IGN on PS4 http://ign.com/wikis/playstation-4/PlayStation_4_Hard_Drive_Speed_Test_Comparison Offical guides from Sony on how to swap storage drives https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/362/~/upgrade-the-hard-disk-drive-(hdd) https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5107/~/upgrade-ps4-hdd" }, { "docid": "395721", "title": "", "text": "\"It is your choice to have \"\"insignificant income\"\", and that has consequences. One is that you cannot borrow money to purchase a home independent of your credit score. In order to purchase a home you must also have the ability to repay in addition to a good history. IMHO your question suggest that you have a unrealistic outlook on life. If you cannot come up with 10K, how can you afford a home? What happens when the HVAC system goes out? While I certainly hope you meet and exceed your goals, you can change your whole world by simply getting a job at a fast food restaurant. When you are not working you can then do the entrepreneurship thing. Life is often a choice of priorities. If you choose to \"\"back-burner\"\" the entrepreneur dream, for a time, and choose to focus on earning the best possible wage. Then perhaps you could afford to purchase a place of your own.\"" }, { "docid": "327184", "title": "", "text": "(I'm assuming this is a publicly traded company, if not, things are somewhat different.) The objection that management might have that flows out of the fact that the pool of available options is fixed in size for the current year. (Or maybe several years depending on how they structured the compensation plan.) Within that pool they have allocated some to various key individuals and then some to to the ESOP pool. They don't want requests for more options than they planned to issue in that period. Suppose that many people notice that the companies prospects are good and offer to forgo some salary for options. This could easily eat up the whole pool and leave nothing for the rest of the year. If I was management here, I would want to structure it so that I had control over how many options were granted so that everyone eligible got some and the pool lasted until the end of the year." } ]

[ { "docid": "549180", "title": "", "text": "It depends on your employer. They may not care to pursue matters if you don't give enough notice. They might be happy to see you go. Or they might be really sad to see you go, but not feel like they need to punish you. Or they might be really angry to see you go, and decide that they want to punish you to the full extent of the law just out of spite. Essentially, we can't tell you that, because different employers will behave differently. My advice? Be a mensch. Give the old employer as much notice as humanly possible so that they can find, hire, and train your replacement. Leave on as good terms as possible. Don't burn bridges. Chances are your new job can wait for another week or two." } ]

[ { "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": "535688", "title": "", "text": "\"One of the best answers to this question that I've ever read is in a paper published by Robert Lucas in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. That journal is meant to a be a place for experts to write about their area of expertise (in economics) for a general but still technically-minded audience. They recently opened up the journal as free to the public, which is a fantastic resource -- you no longer need a subscription to JSTOR (or whatever) to read it. You can read the abstract to the paper, and find a link to it, here. One of the things that I like a lot about this paper is that it strips out absolutely everything even slightly unnecessary to thinking about a macroeconomy, and just discusses what one can arrive at with a very very simple model. Of course, with great simplicity come sacrifice about details. However, it does a great job of answering your question, \"\"why do people care about growth?\"\" A quick note: the key to understanding the answer to your question is to think about things in terms of \"\"the long term\"\" -- not even looking forward to the future, because we'll be dead by then, but looking back to the past. The key to the importance of growth is that, for the last ~200 years, the US has, on average, had maybe 2-3% \"\"real growth\"\" per year (I'm pulling these numbers out of my head; I think much better numbers are in that paper somewhere). On average, over that period of time, this growth has meant that the quality of life that one has, if one lives in a country experiencing this growth, is enormous compared to countries that do not experience this average growth over that period. Statistically speaking, growth is also somewhat auto-correlated. Roughly speaking, if it was low the last few periods, you can expect it to be low the next period. Same thing if it's high. Then, the reason we care about growth right now: if you have too many periods of low growth, pretty soon the average \"\"over the long term\"\" growth will be pulled down -- and then quality of life can't be higher in the future (which quickly becomes someone's \"\"present\"\"). The paper above makes this point with a very simple model. Of course, none of this touches on distributional issues, which are another issue entirely. With respect to, \"\"The economy needs to grow to just keep up with its debt repayments,\"\" I think the answer is along the lines of, \"\"sometimes countries get into debt expecting that growth will increase their resources in the future, and thus they can pay back their debt.\"\" That strategy is, of course, the strategy that anyone borrowing (\"\"taking out a loan\"\") should be employing -- you should expect that your future income will be enough to pay back your interest+principle on a loan you took. Otherwise you're irresponsible. At the aggregate level, production is the nation's \"\"income\"\" -- it is what you have, all that you have (as a nation) to pay back any debt you've incurred at the national level.\"" }, { "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": "179891", "title": "", "text": "Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive." }, { "docid": "305600", "title": "", "text": "With trillion dollar plus deficits, it's not like we're running an austerity program here. When you say sacrifice, compared to what? Two trillion dollar deficits? Your observation of constant predictions of imminent doom is valid. The timeline has been extended by a series of bubbles- market, housing, fiscal deficits... The shortcoming of doom prognosticators is that they underestimate the willingness of those in power to do whatever it takes to prolong the status quo, regardless of the long term consequences. The game is perpetuated by ever increasing debt, and government became the borrower of last resort once the rest of the economy was tapped out. The govt's ability to continue along this course in the open market is questionable as the Fed appears to be monetizing a large portion of newly issued debt. The end game is a currency crisis. It's nice to have a timeline accompanying a prediction, and critical for investing, but it is often very difficult to do, and in this case, it has been extremely difficult because the policy decisions have been rational from the perspective of elites maintaining their status, but not optimal from the standpoint of solving the problem. That doesn't mean the predictions are useless though. You could live in a flood zone and not be able to predict with accuracy when the next flood will occur, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare. Given the uncertainty with timing this, it seems to me the best course of action is not to try to time it, especially with respect to investing based on market timing, but to prepare the best you can for what will inevitably eventually occur." }, { "docid": "173052", "title": "", "text": "\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\"" }, { "docid": "594122", "title": "", "text": "If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Yes for every buyer there is a seller. The inflows are not being talked in that respect. about there being $25B in inflows to US equity markets since the election...what does that mean? Lets say the index was at X. After a month the index is at X+100. So lets say there are only 10 companies listed. So if the Index has moved X to X+100, then share price S1 has moved to S1+d1. So if you sum all such shares/trades that have increased in value, you will get what in inflow. In the same period there could be some shares that have lost value. i.e. the price or another share was S2 and has moved to S2-d2. The sum of all such shares/trades that have decreased in value, you will get outflow. The terms are Gross outflow, Gross inflow. In Net terms for a period, it can only be Inflow or outflow; depending on the difference between inflow and outflow. The stats are done day to day and aggregated for the time period required. So generally if the index has increased, it means there is more inflow and less outflow. At times this analysis is also done on segments, FI's inflow is more compared to outflow or compared to inflow of NBFI or Institutional investors or Foreign participants etc." }, { "docid": "325371", "title": "", "text": "What are the consequences if I ignore the emails? That would depend on how much efforts the collection agency is ready to put in. I got a social security number when I took up on campus jobs at the school and I do have a credit score. Can they get a hold of this and report to the credit bureaus even though I don't live in America? Possibly yes, they may already be doing it. Will they know when I come to America and arrest me at the border or can they take away my passport? For this, they would have to file a civil case in the court and get an injunction to arrest you. Edit: Generally it is unlikely that the court may grant an arrest warrant, unless in specific cases. A lawyer advise would be more appropriate. End Edits It is possible that the visa would also get rejected as you would have to declare previous visits and credit history is not good." }, { "docid": "96627", "title": "", "text": "\"keeps telling me that she'll be in a difficult position if I quit. \"\"And she promised me that she will put me in contact with different people if I do well (she used to work in IBD)\"\" Let me translate. Your boss doesn't care about you and will do or say anything necessary to keep you. Sorry that's a bit blunt, but this is what management does. If you leave and pursue IBD, they will respect that and help you whether you stay or not...unless they don't give a shit. You need to do what's best for you. You can very easily say \"\"I don't think this is the best place for me to learn X, I need to go to Y company to achieve this. It took me Z weeks to learn this\"\" Of course this doesn't apply if you've known this person for years beforehand, but I'm 95% sure this is what you need to be aware of. Management sucks when you aren't in their \"\"club,\"\" (which it sounds like you're not) it's a part of life.\"" }, { "docid": "463892", "title": "", "text": "Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount." }, { "docid": "307009", "title": "", "text": "\"I did this a couple of years ago, and boy do I regret it. After many months of delayed, and new faces coming onto the team for a short period before leaving, there wasn't much hope to ever complete the project. I ended up accumulating debt (About 4.5 grand) that I am still paying off because I chased my dream. Unfortunately, anything can happen when you choose to pursue a goal. It can get delayed, stopped, or outright fail. At the bare minimum, you would best be prepared to deal with delays, competing products, and outright failures. If you say \"\"I have enough money to last me 12 months and I expect to take 7 months\"\", then you best be prepared to answer: These are just a handful of ideas, and there are plenty more that would need to be addressed. Probably the best thing that I have seen a few friends do is to ask for reduced hours. Working part time allows you more time while reducing, but not eliminating, the pay. Even better is that depending on your company, you could ask to go back to full time if your startup didn't work out. Another option is to do what I'm doing currently: Find a job with lots of downtime. My job is critical and the market here is starved of good techs. Even then, I have a solid 2-4 hours of work each day. The other 4-6 hours I can spend on my personal projects that may eventually lead into a startup. If you plan to do this though, make sure to read your agreements carefully. There may be restrictions on copyright and the likes by working on a personal project on company property. If you do plan to go this route, you might want to consult a lawyer (like I did) to make sure you won't get screwed later.\"" }, { "docid": "515394", "title": "", "text": "Do yourself a favor: calculate the price of airfare, calculate how many points it takes to get a good flight, and calculate how many points you get per dollar spent. What you will find is that it is a ripoff. Leave the card at home and unlink it from your online purchasing accounts. You're welcome. If you really want to earn rewards, just put your necessary bills on that card. Over time it will accumulate, but do the math first so you can weigh the consequences." }, { "docid": "429314", "title": "", "text": "You won't get reported to a credit bureau for an overdraft, that's a service offered internal to the bank. The only way it would affect your credit score is if you had an overdraft fee that you didn't pay, which would get reported. There's is a system that gets a notice when you overdraft though. The bank MIGHT report you to ChexSystems, which is an agency that tracks the mishandling of accounts. Generally, a fee based overdraft is an agreement with you and the bank that they will charge you a fee, this is desirable to the bank, so they don't report to ChexSystems unless there's some sort of abuse. Banks view overdraft like a product for revenue generation and they encourage you to continue. Examples of abuse are: intentional overdrawing where the bank updates the account balances by batch jobs, so that you can overdraft 5x$1000 on an account that only has $1000+fees in it. Banks check ChexSystems to see if you have mishandled accounts to determine if you can open up another account, though they're mostly checking to see if you are leaving accounts in bad or negative status." }, { "docid": "1926", "title": "", "text": "as a past intern: * don't bring an attache * don't wear a suit, unless you're expected to, or for certain events (clients/big meetings/events/etc). * look around you. your team/floor doesn't wear ties. don't wear a tie (unless for something like #2). Same for suits, etc.. I mean you can wear anything you want, but don't over do it. this also should go with time you arrive and time you leave. try to mimic your team. obviously as an intern you don't need to stay until 8pm. typical hours are 9-6 depending on your area/team. don't be the intern leaves right when it hits 5:00pm...this ain't a shop rite shift. your hours depend on your work and how ahead/behind you are. * don't be afraid to ask questions. you *should* ask questions. just don't over do it. these people are very busy. * be respectful * go to events with your fellow interns. be social. be nice. * don't get too wasted at networking events * don't get too stressed out. its just a job, its not life and death. unless you really mess up, chances are you'll get an offer letter at the end of the summer. * *try* to stay off reddit :) * have fun." }, { "docid": "282387", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; I guarantee you that there's someone, somewhere (probably many someones in many somewheres) that would be happy to do your job for a lot less money. Probably, but I am in a very different type of labor market than a Boeing union worker. Firms compete over candidates pretty ruthlessly, and the use of headhunters starts in the first couple months of work - sometimes before you even leave college. I started using a headhunter immediately after junior year ended. Boeings requirements for it's mechanics is \"\"pass drug test, graduated high school\"\". The requirements for getting my job were \"\"attend a top university in the US, have a GPA in the top 5% at your institution, and then beat out on 90,000 other applicants for the fewer than 1,000 slots. The selectivity rate for the job is nearly 6-fold higher than getting into Harvard undergrad. What I'm getting at is that it's not a matter of \"\"other people would willingly do my job for less\"\", it's the fact that those people are unable to get my job to begin with as the companies are unwilling to lower their standards and are competing for a very small pool of talent. But the minute they thought that they COULD do so without any ill consequences I know that they would outsource my position to India and I wouldn't blame them for doing it. &gt; Does that mean that all publicly traded companies have a duty to demand tax incentives to not move to North Carolina, or Poland, or Cambodia? My company has found a way to move a lot of it's back office employees out of state to cheaper areas. It is, in fact, the duty of any public company to strive for profit maximization. In the case of Boeing the cost savings over the next 30 years by moving to North Carolina (or Missouri, or whatever) would be incredible, which is why they have spoken about it. &gt;Calling someone overcompensated means that the prevailing wage in the competitive labor market for the same quality of work is lower, not just assuming that someone would be willing to do it if you offered them $40k and a wrench. It is. They are already being paid a lower rate outside of Washington State. Not to mention the idea that the competitive labor levels are brought about by a union is a direct affront to 80 years of labor economics. &gt;That's easy to say and strikes an intuitive chord with the public, but there's no evidence that Boeing \"\"needs\"\" to do this. Except that their primary competitor receives funding from multiple European governments. And EADS (or Airbus Group now) is constantly attempting to take market share from Boeing in the United States, both with airlines and with the government itself. &gt;(stopping making stupid decisions to outsource large components around the world would be a great way to save money, for starters) I can guarantee you that, on paper, the expected costs for outsourcing even with the risks involved were lower. But sometimes things don't go according to plan. Does that mean that companies should not try to innovate in their processes?\"" }, { "docid": "546801", "title": "", "text": "How are unions leverage in this situation? The jobs demonstrably *can* be done elsewhere, the questions is one total cost (both monetary and with respect to other factors, such as quality, timeliness, and intangibles such as company reputation and public opinion). Unions are great when the jobs are not easily mobile, or when the issues at hand are legal and the collective resources of the union allows for more effective legal action. They're also effective when the issues are incremental (i.e. of relatively low overall cost), because the union serves (almost by definition) to organize and focus the resources of the group into addressing the groups concerns and desires. The only *really* effective leverage is to have a skill set that is costly to replace." }, { "docid": "575074", "title": "", "text": "\"To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to. It's what you spend, not what you bring in. Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living. If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k. He now saves double what he would have before. That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved. His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley. For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive. I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole. Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as \"\"the bay\"\" are not in SF. they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area. So this might explain some of our disagreements. Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more \"\"hip\"\" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC. In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this. Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies. I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside. Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense. But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase. It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different. Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave. In my calculations I evaluated the COL markup to be ~30% for the valley for a 200k job. That is, I spend maybe 50k of my earning on all living expenses in the Midwest (in a downtown, nice area), and would expect I'd pay about 70k for the same standard in the valley. But I'd be saving a shitton more. I've done the math, I'm not here to argue with someone who just googled SF cost of living searching for the answers I want. I've talked to actual people out there. I appreciate your passion for this, but your 100% increase in COL estimate is simply wrong. But then again, it depends on how you live and where you live in your current situation. I live in a large midwest city, actually in the city itself.\"" }, { "docid": "237204", "title": "", "text": "COBRA is with regards to any termination, not only if you're laid off. If you leave your job voluntarily you're still eligible for COBRA, at least from my experience in California. Once you start working at the new job that provides health benefits - you're expected to roll-off of COBRA. No. Once you run out of the COBRA period - you're on your own." }, { "docid": "246485", "title": "", "text": "Hey Congrats on the Interview. I have been to the Manhattan office for their charity day. It is a very legitimate firm and you should really go for the job. My advice to you is to know your stuff and be prepared. I'm not sure exactly what the position entails but read over the job description and make sure you sell yourself. I tried to get an internship there when i went for the charity day. I went with one of the famous people that they invite every year and i spoke with the manager and met the CEO but when it came time to email them they just brushed me off and said that the position was full. The CEO is very well known and respectable up on Wall Street. I believe it would be a great opportunity however, it would probably be pretty cutthroat." } ]

[ { "docid": "530037", "title": "", "text": "When I was pursuing my Business Degree in Canada we were told the standard notice period is 2 weeks on both sides. This means your employer is required to give you at least two weeks notice and you are required to give it as well. If you violate your notice requirement the employer can sue you for lost revenues and etc. for that time period. The converse side is if your employer failed to provide you with sufficient notice you could sue for lost wages for that time frame as well. I'm sure you can contractually agree to more than the legal minimum of two weeks." } ]

[ { "docid": "68857", "title": "", "text": "Freeze this vermin' assets and that of his family and go after the extended family too... There has to be grave consequences to this kind of scheming and theft. His.punishment should serve as a warning to others. I hope all Americans are taking notice of the kind of.crooks that have and are holding office." }, { "docid": "173052", "title": "", "text": "\"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\"" }, { "docid": "119415", "title": "", "text": "Learn how to do the job and don't be afraid to step in and help out. If you never do this people will assume you think you're too good to do the work they do and they won't respect you or your authority. Being good at something gives you natural authority and people will seek you out for advice/direction. Trust your employees to do their jobs until they prove otherwise. Management is a relationship and relationships are based on trust. If you want to be untrusted the very best way to go about it is to show you don't trust the other person. If you're not trusted then no one is going to follow your untrustworthy advice/direction. Stay calm even when things are going terribly. Even if you're freaking out on the inside it's best to show a calm front. If you're constantly on edge it will amplify through your employees and a chaotic workplace is obviously less efficient overtime. If you lose your cool apologize sincerely. Be positive. Always have something good to say about something and employees will more likely be able to stay positive. If you're negative all the time then again this is going to amplify through employees and if everyone is gossiping and complaining all day efficiency is going to go down. Be assertive and explain why. Sometimes you can take input from employees and negotiate, but sometimes you just have to tell them what to do and it's important to include why because if you include the why people are much more likely to comply as well as to remember what you said. All these things may not make you liked. If your goal is to be liked then quit because all bosses aren't liked by many employees. You will be more likely to be effective and at least respected." }, { "docid": "87482", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;They compensate me fairly for doing work that I mostly enjoy. I cant relate to your sentiment. I work for an intercontinental grocery company, as a Janitor and Stocker for one of their local stores in the US. I work swing shift for minimum wage as a Part Time employee. No benefits. Meanwhile, I sometimes work 15 hour shifts (anything over 12 is illegal for part timers, iirc). I have worked every hour of the 24 hour clock inside the span of three days, and still not seen a day off for another week, while still not earning overtime for that week. I've gotten 8 hours some weeks, and 39.8 hours other weeks, without any predictability. I cannot even fully trust the work schedule they publish on Thursday for the following week beginning that coming Sunday. With as little as three days notice with the posted schedule, I am on call to work, or have my shift cancelled, even after I am clocked in for that shift. In the end, I am on call 24/7. And I'm even expected to actively \"\"represent the company\"\" while off the clock, as free advertising. No, not simply the \"\"don't do anything that would reflect poorly on your employer,\"\" but to actively (without any structured guidance, because that would turn it into labor, and necessitate pay) talk with neighbors and strangers about our low low prices. If we don't spend our own free time to study the ads and specials, we recieve a public shaming among our peers. There is not a single thing that I enjoy about my job. Some of the other people working there aren't half bad. But the best ones usually walk out or get fired for wanting little things like \"\"respect\"\". I actually went to college. I have job skills. I almost didn't get hired because of this - but you know, I convinced them I was desperate to have *something* getting me by. A few former college classmates who also work/ed there vouched for me on that. I've charted how the quantity of most products going off of special that our computers order actually assumes the same number of sales as when it was *on special!* I was in the process of deriving a better algorithm for this... and I enjoy *that* work. But after I pointed this problem out to my manager, I was laughed at. We literally throw away entire dumpsters full of product every month because it passes the expiration date, and management groans and complains about this. Yet my observation of how this happens was laughed at and shrugged off. And just the icing on this cake: I still haven't gotten that second work shirt that I was promised after 90 days. I've been there for 8 months. Those long hours on back to back to back days don't always give me the opportunity to do laundry. Then they complain when I reek at work, sweating as I rush the 20+ pound boxes of cat litter onto the shelves. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard, fuck 'em long, and fuck 'em with something hard, sandpapery, and with splinters. Gimme a few more months to demonstrate that I can hold a job, and I'm going to get a job at... Fuck, everywhere else around here is just like this, and I don't know the people or have a portfolio of works in fields where I could actually use my Math degree.\"" }, { "docid": "84673", "title": "", "text": "ACH transfers are reversible and traceable. So what's stopping them is the ease and the speed with which they would be caught. When you give a check - you have to provide some information to the payee so that they could cash it. You can't withhold the bank or the account number - how would they charge you? So it has to be on it, and if it is on it - it can be put on any other (fake) check. That is why checks come also with your signature, and are always available for you to inspect when they're cashed. If you notice something out of the ordinary (check you didn't give? ACH transfer you didn't authorize?) on your statement - it is your responsibility to notify the bank within X period of time (60 days, I think) of the statement, and it will be dealt with. So the best way to protect yourself would be to keep an eye on your account and verify that the transactions that you see are all authorized, and do it frequently. Keeping large amounts of cash on your checking account is never a good idea, regardless. Also, since checks are inherently unsafe - try to only give checks to people you trust, and use bill-pay or credit cards with anyone else." }, { "docid": "336179", "title": "", "text": "You can still be nice, yet command authority. In fact, being a D-bag boss will often negatively affect the company's culture, which is very important. If you make a brash change people will notice and give you less respect. Just be straight with what needs to get done, and why. But at the same time, don't be afraid to kick ass if it's need." }, { "docid": "57994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a manager of a charity shop so work with a wide range of unpaid volunteers, which requires an especially soft touch (most of the time, everyone is different) or people will just leave. It takes longer, but the overall results are better and more long-lasting. Think of it like pushing a boat from the docks with your hand, always applying a small pressure to get the boat to gradually move where you want, rather than ramming into the side of a boat with a truck - sure it'll get you there quicker, but will cause lasting damage. It's also best to take it slow, as you need time to learn the business and people. Be clear about your approach with your boss, managing their expectations is important. Anyway, here is what I've learnt in my first year or so doing this job, plus things I've learnt along the way in my previous career as a software engineer (radical career change!) where I've managed people and been managed: 1. Be yourself. Don't pretend to be someone you're not, everyone will see right through you in an instant. You'll change over time as you get used to managing people, that's fine, but always be yourself through that. 1. Say \"\"thank you\"\" to everyone at the end of each day as you say goodbye. Mean it. Think of all the work they've done today for you. 1. Spread the shit evenly. Every job has crap parts, make sure you and everyone else gets their fair share and no more. I regularly hoover, clean the bathroom, wash-up, and so on. 1. Ask, don't tell. If you bark orders, people will do them.. but they'll put no effort into it and you'll distance yourself from them. Ask if they could do something for you. It's a politeness, nobody ever says no unless there is an issue which you need to deal with anyway. 1. Pick your battles. Is it worth moaning at someone for that little infraction? Or can you get over that message another way? i.e. I don't like people having drinks on the till counter, so when I take over to cover for them for a break, I just move it. After a while, no drinks appear on the counter. 1. Be honest. If you don't know, say so.. ask for input. Weigh up the options out loud, then pick one, explain why, and go for it - or better yet, get the person that thought of it working with you (not for you) to implement it. If you're wrong, hold your hand up and try the other suggestion(s). 1. Always take responsibility when things go wrong - that is actually your job. When things go well, use *you* and *we*. If things go badly, sometimes *I*, sometimes *we*, but never *you*. 1. Always be pro-active with money. If you owe your staff money for any reason, chase them to give it to them, never let them chase you. If there even *might* be any problems at all with money, let everyone know as soon as you know. Go out of your way to ensure they get what they're owed *now*, not later. I just did this today actually, I forgot to do expenses for someone and switched over the till so there wasn't enough cash in the new till to cover it.. so I just took it from the money to bank, and marked down why there was a discrepancy on the paperwork and will do the same tomorrow when that doesn't match by the opposite amount. I should not do this at all, but it's the right thing to do. 1. Listen carefully. Often employees have problems but won't bring them up, either they don't think anything will get done, or they don't want to get someone in trouble, or something else. However, if you listen and observe carefully, often there are clues to the things that are bothering them and you'll find ways to tackle them. 1. Don't run a team meeting until you know everyone, if you can avoid it. You don't know shit about how the company works, who the people are, what makes them tick, what they do, and so on. All you'll do is come across as a bit of a tool, and distance yourself from them (as boss). When you do run one, just guide it, don't lead it. Always hand over control of the conversation as much as possible, except of course where you've got things that they need to hear. 1. Never joke about your 'power'. i.e. Don't mess about saying how you'll fire them if blah, or how you'll give them all the shit work, or mention pay jokingly, etc. I had a boss that did that when drunk, not in a serious way at all, and he was very widely hated for pretty well nothing other than that. It served as a constant reminder that he's separate from us. 1. Give people room, but don't be taken for a ride. If someone is late once, fine, I wouldn't even mention it. Late again, maybe I'd make a light joke of it. Late again.. we'll have a chat.. always listen to what they have to say, is there any way you can help? But, don't be taken for a ride. I've had people pick me up on being late the very first time I was late, and you know what, I was more late for that job from then on than I've ever been before or since. 1. Try to get your employees to come up with ideas to move the business forwards. It's very easy to look at a business and say \"\"we need this, that, and the other doing.. like this!\"\". But you need to get your employees to buy into it, or they just won't do it properly. It'll be like getting blood out of a stone to start with, but if you're patient and support their ideas most people will come around. You *need* their input as they know their job better than you. 1. EDIT: Always be clear what you want from people, when. Speak with them about the task(s) before-hand to make sure they're comfortable with it and think it can be done in the time. So many times I've been given tasks with unrealistic deadlines, the manager hasn't wanted to listen to my protests, then wonders why it didn't get done in time. It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know.. so I say go for it and support it completely as a good idea. We tried it for a month, and we made exactly the same amount of money.. sold twice as many books, but no extra cash. So it was valuable to do, and we discovered that maybe 1.49 might be a good option to try. But, far more importantly, they saw their ideas put into action right away, and saw the results of that. It empowered them, which is incredibly important for a wide variety of reasons that are too much to go into here, but basically it makes them feel more respected, enjoy their job more, think more about the business, and so on - you know what it's like when you're empowered, how good it feels. However, it's being empowered with the support that's important, something which you personally going into your new job don't feel you have, which leads to the anxiety and so on I'm sure you're feeling now. Don't put your employees in that position if you can help it. There is also another reason why I outright supported their idea from the offset. It didn't work (although we didn't loose anything) and I thought it wouldn't, but I can say \"\"*we* tried\"\". It wasn't down to that one person, they didn't feel bad that it didn't work because I was right behind it, and it's my job to take responsibility. If it had been *their* idea that had failed, they wouldn't give any ideas ever again, and everyone else would be put off too. As soon as anyone tries to take personal responsibility, and they will, stick to your guns in supporting them.. stronger than ever. Now we're getting a lot of ideas all the time, they're having in-depth discussions amongst each other, they're pro-active, and so on. As a business we're doing much better now because of it.. profits are up 15% from last year and we've only just begun to kick things off, and that's going against a national trend downwards. We've had several critical changes to our shop layout, back-room organisation, results reporting, stock handling processes, and so on.. all from volunteer ideas and feedback. So the 15% is actually the tip of the iceberg, what we've got in place now should allow us to grow more quickly too. And remember, you can make suggestions too of course.. but they're just that, suggestions. Suggest them to your employees, speak with several of them, then get back to them when you've made a decision. Don't say \"\"I'm thinking of trying this\"\", say \"\"I was just thinking.. what about this? Do you think it would work?\"\" and talk about it. Think of arguments against your idea, see if they counter them, and so on. Now.. how many of these changes did I think of before-hand and want to enact? About half.. so we've got a significant number of successful ideas that I personally hadn't thought of, everyone's happier and working harder for the business, and we have a bright future. I have more ideas too, and people listen to and respect them now just like I have with them. I think that's the key to it all really. Show your employees respect, and they'll show you it in return.\"" }, { "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": "266319", "title": "", "text": "The equation for the payment is This board does not support Latex (the number formatting code) so the above is an image, the code is M is the payment calculated, n is the number of months or periods to pay off, and i is the rate per period. You can see that with i appearing 3 times in this equation, it's not possible to isolate to the form i=.... so a calculator will 'guess,' and use, say, 10%. It then raises or lowers the rate until the result is within the calculator's tolerance. I've observed that unlike other calculations, when you hit the button to calculate, a noticeable time lag occurs. I hope I haven't read too much into your question, it seemed to me this was what you asked." }, { "docid": "336792", "title": "", "text": "\"Its called a \"\"Grace Period\"\" and you are not paying interest on the 0% BT, you are paying interest on the amount you spent in purchases If you do not pay your balance in full by the due date your grace period ends. This means that you have to pay interest on the purchased amount from the day it is made. This is why when you do a balance transfer the card should be put in the Sock Drawer until the BT is paid off. In order to restore the grace period you must pay the balance in full and the grace period will start during the Next Payment Cycle. Lets Assume: Statement cuts on the 1st and Due date is the 20th. you make the minimum payment of $10 Balance now is $100 Since you have a balance of $100 from the previous statement and a new purchase of $50.00, when the next statement cuts you will have to pay interest according to the terms on the $50.00 portion. In order to get the grace period back you will have to pay in full and wait for the next cycle In case I did not explain it well here is a quote from creditcards dot com website: The cost of carrying a balance This is because carrying a balance of any size into the next billing cycle means there is no grace period on your purchases during that cycle. The card company will begin charging interest on your purchases the day you make them. So leaving even $1 in unpaid balance on your card will cost you considerably more than the measly finance charges on that dollar. To see how this works let's consider an imaginary card user named Sally. She's so happy she got a new credit card that she charges $1,500 in purchases on the first day of her monthly billing cycle. After the cycle ends, Sally pays off the entire $1,500 by the due date, wiping her balance to zero. As a result, her purchases during the second month are also free of interest. She has used her grace period wisely to avoid finance charges. What happens if Sally leaves just $1 of her balance from the first month unpaid? That $1 begins to accrue interest starting the first day of the billing cycle. It's just $1, so the interest is not a big deal -- but because she used up her grace period without paying off her entire debt, her new purchases during the second month also start to get hit with interest charges immediately, starting the day of the transaction. Assuming she makes another $1,500 in purchases at the average annual interest rate of about 13 percent, that means $16 in finance charges for the month. If Sally repeats this pattern, the interest costs add up to $190 over the course of a year.\"" }, { "docid": "512803", "title": "", "text": "Express yourself as being disloyal and see what happens next. I have been loyal to every company I have ever worked for since I started working at fourteen. I am now sixty. Some things have not worked out for me, but I own a home. I have a good job that I love. I work hard and I earn a good living. Be disloyal to your company and put *that* on your resume and see what your future holds for you. All you have to do to be loyal to your company is do your job and not betray them. Some companies I have worked for have, in fact, gone out of business while I was working for them and I lost my last paycheck, but I moved on. In my opinion if you hire me and you pay me for my work, if I understand my obligations to my employer and my employer understands its obligations to me then I am loyal and if I am not happy two weeks notice is my prerogative if there is some reason I can't negotiate a solution. I will never betray an employer. If I do not want to work somewhere I will leave." }, { "docid": "122534", "title": "", "text": "Facebook is currently the most often visited site on the web. So it only follows that we as marketers should take full advantage of all the promotional possibilities it offers. Facebook adder software makes it super simple to market to whatever demographic you’re marketing to as well as whatever niche you’re tapping into. Currently you’ll find that there are several tools out there that are used for sending out multiple friend requests at a time. Yet although, there are a relatively large number that will actually get the job done, only smaller fraction of these types of programs can perform this action without getting your account banned. Facebook is fairly vigilant with respect to their methods of detecting spam. Therefore, if you decide to use an automated process to build your fan page, you must be somewhat strategic in your methodology. The application you use, must allow you to easily set things such as how many friend request you can make and over what period of time you can make them. You should try to keep the number of friend request per day under 50, because sending out 100′s of request per day will surely get you banned." }, { "docid": "325371", "title": "", "text": "What are the consequences if I ignore the emails? That would depend on how much efforts the collection agency is ready to put in. I got a social security number when I took up on campus jobs at the school and I do have a credit score. Can they get a hold of this and report to the credit bureaus even though I don't live in America? Possibly yes, they may already be doing it. Will they know when I come to America and arrest me at the border or can they take away my passport? For this, they would have to file a civil case in the court and get an injunction to arrest you. Edit: Generally it is unlikely that the court may grant an arrest warrant, unless in specific cases. A lawyer advise would be more appropriate. End Edits It is possible that the visa would also get rejected as you would have to declare previous visits and credit history is not good." }, { "docid": "311490", "title": "", "text": "\"I know something about this issue, so maybe I can put it into context from my world. One problem is that dairy farmers - like any small/mid-sized business - can only afford to pay so much in wages (especially factoring in the fact that the cost per employee is higher b/c employment taxes, maybe insurance, etc.). As a commodity, milk and feed (to make the milk) prices are set and any fluctuation is passed to the farmer, so it isn't like the costs of paying a higher wage can be passed directly on to the consumer. Also, the kind of work involved is not what most Americans are willing to do. There are 4 trailer parks within 5-15 minutes of the dairy farm here - and very seldom - if ever - has an American come asking for a job - when they did, they got a chance - at $12/hour and housing if needed. They never last long: drug/alcohol use, warrants, bad attitudes, absenteeism, mistreatment of the animals. Local workers simply are not dependable to show up on time, for every scheduled shift, and do a good job. Hispanic workers are paid the same wages. It isn't like 10-15 years ago when some jerk farmer thought he could cut his labor cost by paying half-wages to \"\"illegals\"\". Hispanics here have social networks, and know the value of their work. If they're not happy, underpaid, whatever - they will leave - and will instigate all the other Hispanics into leaving as well. Dairy farming is a hard, dangerous, smelly job that puts you out in the heat of summer, cold of winter, pouring rain, day and night, 24/7. If you paid a wage that compensates for that, there would be no dairy industry and if there were, its products would not be affordable. So the Hispanic workers get an ok wage to do a job that no American is willing to touch. And robots? They don't work that great either: expensive, constantly needing service - and the rats eat the power cables!\"" }, { "docid": "240937", "title": "", "text": "Iceland had slaves during their 'libertarian' period, so I don't particularly care to look to them as a cultural example. Don't know much about the libertarian societies in Ireland. I also don't romanticize Native American societies, either, which, on their smaller scale, had their own problems and violence. Also, I qualified examples with my last sentence, saying we haven't seen it work on a large scale yet, which, with a population in the billions, is the order of the day for now. &gt;All this to say: Somolia isn't a valid argument against libertarianism. :) True enough. I just like to poke the sleeping bear sometimes, because honestly, I don't much respect anarcho capitalists, much in the same way I don't respect hardcore communists: it sounds great in theory, in reality it doesn't seem to work well when the rubber meets the road." }, { "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": "72372", "title": "", "text": "Stock values are generally reflective of a company's overall potential; and to some extent investor confidence in the prospect of a continued growth of that potential. Sales over such a short period of time such as a single weekend do not noticeably impact a stock's valuation. A stock's value has more to do with whether or not they meet market expectations for sales over a certain period of time (generally 1 quarter of a year) than it does that they actually had sales (or profits) on any given day. Of course, catastrophic events, major announcements, or new product releases do sometimes cause significant changes in a stock's value. For this reason you will often see stocks have significant volatility in periods around earnings announcements, merger rumors, or when anything unexpected happens in the world that might benefit or hurt their potential sales and growth. But overall a normal, average weekend of sales is already built into the price of a stock during normal trading." }, { "docid": "400862", "title": "", "text": "Besides spending all your money, and then not being able to find a new job when you want to and where you want to, the biggest risk is the lack of health insurance. Research your options regarding your existing insurance under COBRA. It will cover your preexisting conditions at the full price of the insurance, that means without the contribution from your employer. Make sure you have fully investigated the options to understand your out of pocket maximums, and the full price of insurance. You will also have to understand the maximum amount of time you are covered under COBRA. If your unemployment goes beyond that period of time, you will have to get individual insurance. You need to avoid a gap in coverage or when you do get a new job, the insurance may not cover some preexisting conditions. Before NASA send astronauts to the space station for months, they give the astronauts a full physical, including a visit to the dentist and eye doctor. It would be advisable to do the same before announcing to the employer that you plan on quitting. the insurance will generally transition to the COBRA program at the end of your last work day. Because both of you work you could do the transition is phases. One would quit, then spend their time getting the sabbatical site established. The insurance would come from the employed spouse during this transition. Some employers do have sabbatical programs where they will ease your transition if you are going to work on your education full time, or work for a charity. They will need you to return at the end of an agreed time period. Even if they don't have a official sabbatical period they usually have a reemployment plan. If you return before the time period expires, usually one or two years, you aren't considered a new employee. That can be important for years of service calculations for a pension, vacation and sick leave earned, 401K matching." }, { "docid": "578530", "title": "", "text": "With a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, timing is irrelevant with respect to taxes. So enjoy your vacation. When you get back, don't invest in one lump sum -- break up your purchases over a period of weeks if possible. If you are investing in ETFs for your index funds, many brokers have no transaction fee ETF options now." } ]

[ { "docid": "570680", "title": "", "text": "I would suggest to buy your own printer, and calculate the cost for a page including the wear to the printer. Then either deduce these printing expenses, or ask the charity to reimburse you. This is not much different than when you would go to a copyshop, those easily charge 10-30c per page, with your own printer you can probably get it around 5-10c per page, including paper, toner, drum, and amortization. The advantage is that when you do use the printer for other purposes, you wont get into any problems with who owns the printer or deductions." } ]

[ { "docid": "371717", "title": "", "text": "\"Document how you came to have the stuff in the first place. First to defend against potential government inquiry; and second to establish that you held the asset more than one year, so you qualify for long-term capital gains rate. I wouldn't sell it privately all at once, if you can avoid it. If you can prove you held it more than a year, you should pay the long-term capital gains tax rate, which is fairly low. You'll keep most of it. A huge windfall often goes very badly. People don't change their financial habits, burn through their winnings shockingly fast, overspend it, and wind up deep in debt. At the end of the crazy train, their lives end up worse. That wasn't your question, but you'll do better if you're on guard for that, with good planning and a desire to invest it in things which give you deferred income in the future. That's the cooler thing, when your investments mean you don't have to go to work! I don't mean donate ALL of it to charity. But feel free. If you hold a security more than one year, and donate it to charity, you get a tax deduction for the appreciated value (even though the security didn't actually cost you that). (link) Do not convert the BTC to cash then donate the cash. Donate it as BTC. Your tax deduction works against your highest tax bracket. If you are paying in a 28% tax bracket (your next $100 of income has $28 tax), then for every $100 of charitable donation, you get $28 back on Federal. It does the same to state tax, and you also avoid the 10-15% capital gains tax because you didn't sell the securities. Do your 1040 both ways and note the difference.***** Your charitable deduction of appreciated securities is capped at 30% of AGI. Any excess will carryover and becomes a tax deduction for the next year, and it can carryover for several years. ** Use a donor-advised fund. If you have are donating more than $5000, you don't need to search for a charity that will take Bitcoin, and you also don't need to pick a charity now. Instead, open a special type of giving account called a Donor-Advised Fund. The DAF, itself, is a charity. It specializes in accepting complex donations and liquidating them into cash. The cash credits to your giving account. You take the tax deduction in the year you give to the DAF. Then, when you want to give to a charity, you tell the DAF to donate on your behalf***. You can tell them to give on your behalf anonymously, or merely conceal your address so you don't get the endless charity junk mail. The DAF lets you hold the money in index funds, so your \"\"charity nest egg\"\" can grow with the market. Mine has more than doubled thanks to the market. This money is no longer yours at this point; you can't give it back to yourself, only to licensed charities. The Fidelity Donor Advised Fund makes a big thing of taking Bitcoin, and I really like them. **** I love my DAF, and it has been a charitable-giving workhorse. It turns you into a philanthropist, and that changes you life in ways I cannot describe. Certainly makes me more level-headed about money. Lottery winner syndrome is just not a risk for me (partly because I'm now on the board of charities, and oversee an endowment.) Donating generally will reduce suspicion (criminals don't do that), but donating to a DAF even moreso. Since the DAF would have to return ill-gotten gains, they're involved. Their lawyers will back you up. The prosecutor is up against a billion dollar corporation instead of just you. With Fidelity particularly, Bitcoin is a crusade for them, and their lawyers know how to defend Bitcoin. A Fidelity DAF is a good play for that reason alone IMO. ** The gory details: Presumably you are donating to regular charities or a Donor Advised Fund, and these are \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". Since it's capital gains, you have a 30% limit. If your donation is more than 30% of AGI, or if you have carryover from last year, you use Worksheet 2 in Publication 526. You plug your donations into line 4, then the worksheet grinds through all the math and shows what part you deduct this year and what part you carryover to the next year. *** I specifically asked managers at two DAFs whether they were OK with someone donating a complex asset to the DAF, and immediately giving the entire cash amount to a charity. The DAF doesn't get any fees if you do that. They said not only are they OK with it, most of their donors do exactly that and most DAF accounts are empty. They make it on the 0.6% a year custodial fee on the other accounts, and charitable giving to them. Mind you, you can only donate to 501C3 type charities, what IRS calls \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". This actually protects you from donating to organizations who lie about their status. **** I'm not with Fidelity, but I am a satisfied DAF customer. The DAF funds its overhead by deducting 0.6% per year from your giving account. If you invest the funds in a mutual fund within the DAF, that investment pays the 0.08% to 1.5% expense ratio of the fund. I can live with that. ***** I just Excel'd the value of donating $100 of appreciated security instead of taking it as capital gains income. 28% Fed tax, 15% Fed cap gains, 8% state tax on both. Take the $100 as income, pay $23 in cap gains tax. Donate $100 in securities, the $23 tax goes away since you didn't sell it. Really. The $100 charitable deduction offsets $100 in income, also saving you $36 in regular income tax. Net tax savings $59. However you lost the $100! So you are net $41 poorer. It costs you $41 to donate $100 to charity. This gets better in higher brackets.\"" }, { "docid": "318716", "title": "", "text": "First of all, in the U.S., no Federal gift tax has to be paid by the recipient of the gift; it is the donor who has to pay gift tax, if any is due. Nor does the recipient have to pay Federal income tax on the gift; it is not considered taxable income. I do not believe that any states view matters differently for the purposes of state gift and income taxes, but I am always ready to be disabused of any such fondly-held notions. If your parents were required to pay any gift tax, that would have been at the time the gift was originally given and only if they gifted more than the maximum allowable exemption per person for that year. Currently the exemption is $14K from each donor per recipient per year. Additional gifts were made by your parents to you during your minority when your parents paid any income tax due on the distributions in your account, but these amounts would unlikely to have been larger than the exemption for that year. In any case, gift tax is none of your concern. If you have been declaring the income from distributions from the mutual funds all these years, then the only tax due on the distributions from the funds in 2013 is the Federal income tax for the 2013 tax year (plus a special assessment of Medicare tax on investment income if your income is large; unlikely based on your question and follow-up comment). If you sold all or part of your shares in the funds in 2013, then you would need to calculate the basis of your investments in the fund in order to figure out if you have capital gains or losses. Ditto if you are thinking of cashing out in 2014 and wish to estimate how much income tax is due. But if you want to just hang on to the funds, then there is no immediate need to figure out the basis right away, though taking care of the matter and keeping in top of things for the future will be helpful. As a final note, there is no tax due on the appreciation of the fund's shares. The increased value of your account because the fund's share price rose is not a taxable event (nor are decreases in the account deductible). These are called unrealized capital gains (or losses) and you do not pay tax on them (or deduct them as losses) until you realize the gains by disposing of the property." }, { "docid": "12822", "title": "", "text": "avoid corporation tax There aren't many avenues to save on corporation tax legally. The best option you can try is paying into a generous pension for yourself, which will save some corporation tax. Buying a house You can claim deduction for the mortgage payments, but profits on selling the house will require paying capital gains tax on the profit. You can rent it out, this will be decided between your mortgage provider and your company, but the rent will go towards as income. Buying a car Not worth it. You will have to pay Class 1A NI contribution for benefits in kind. Any sane accountant will ask you to buy the car yourself and expense the mileage. Any income generated from the cash you have is taxable. Even the interest being paid on your money is taxable." }, { "docid": "63919", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\"" }, { "docid": "303078", "title": "", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"" }, { "docid": "466718", "title": "", "text": "\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"" }, { "docid": "263440", "title": "", "text": "\"In addition to tax-related benefits, one answer may be that it helps them avoid being inundated with requests to support other foundations. Most charities have access to public records that indicate potential donors based on income and demographic. They can use that info to solicit for donations. \"\"Hey NFL Player, you have lots of money, and we have cute starving emus that really need your help!\"\" Here's a blurb from Foundation Source about some of the benefits to starting your own foundation. Get an Immediate Tax Deduction, but Give Later: You get the tax deduction when the foundation is funded, then make your charitable gifts over time. Leave a Lasting Legacy: Foundations set up in perpetuity can burnish your name far beyond your lifetime. Because gifts are made from an endowment that generates investment revenue, the total gifts made by the foundation can far surpass the actual funding. Be Taken More Seriously as a Philanthropist: A foundation imparts a gravitas that causes people to take your philanthropy more seriously, due to the structured, organized approach you employ for your giving. Sidestep Unsolicited Requests: When you focus your foundation on specific giving areas, your mission statement can be used to politely turn down off-target funding requests. Deepen and Focus Your Philanthropy: Whereas individual donors often spread their giving among as many causes as possible, the formalized structure of a foundation often encourages donors to narrow their focus to specific causes. Build a Better Family: As family members take on philanthropic research, present their findings to the board, participate in the decision-making process, and track results, they hone skills that will serve them for years to come. Tax-Deductible Grants to Individuals in Need: A private foundation allows you to provide emergency assistance directly to individuals using dollars for which you’ve already received a tax deduction. Run Charitable Programs Without Setting Up a Separate Nonprofit: Direct charitable activities are IRS-approved programs that permit foundations to directly fund and carry out their own projects. Pay Charitable Expenses: All legitimate and reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the foundation’s charitable mission can be paid by the foundation and will count toward the annual minimum distribution requirement. Provide Loans Instead of Grants: When used to support a charitable purpose, private foundations can employ loans, loan guarantees, and even equity investments, which are paid back (potentially with interest), so you can recycle your philanthropic capital for other charitable causes. https://www.foundationsource.com/resources/library/top-10-advantages-of-a-private-foundation/ There's a similar list here on the website for an attorney that specializes in philanthropy and non-profits. I won't copy/paste that list as it's similar, but I wanted to provide an additional source confirming the above benefits. This link contains some disadvantages as well. http://www.hurwitassociates.com/l_start_pros.php\"" }, { "docid": "402523", "title": "", "text": "HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan." }, { "docid": "364938", "title": "", "text": "It looks like you can. Take a look at these articles: http://www.googobits.com/articles/1747-taking-an-itemized-deduction-for-job-expenses.html http://www.bankrate.com/finance/money-guides/business-expenses-that-benefit-you.aspx http://www.hrblock.com/taxes/tax_tips/tax_planning/employment.html But of course, go to the source: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html#en_US_publink100026912 From publication 529: You can deduct certain expenses as miscellaneous itemized deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040 or Form 1040NR). You can claim the amount of expenses that is more than 2% of your adjusted gross income. You figure your deduction on Schedule A by subtracting 2% of your adjusted gross income from the total amount of these expenses. Your adjusted gross income is the amount on Form 1040, line 38, or Form 1040NR, line 36. I hope that helps. Happy deducting!" }, { "docid": "97348", "title": "", "text": "\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \"\"personal use property\"\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\"" }, { "docid": "55108", "title": "", "text": "From what I understand this is what you can do : You need to raise an invoice to your brother's company in USA Your brother makes a payment into your Indian company's bank account using wire transfer straight into a bank account in your company's name. Your brother wont have to pay taxes on the money that he pays you against an invoice as it would be an expense and would not be considered as profit for tax purposes. Once you have the money you can then file your income tax returns after deducting your own expenses etc in India. I hope this helps." }, { "docid": "544381", "title": "", "text": "\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"" }, { "docid": "183612", "title": "", "text": "Assuming you buy the services and products beforehand and then provide them to your clients. Should the cost of these products and services be deducted from my declared income or do I include them and then claim them as allowable expenses? You arrive at your final income after accounting for your incomings and outgoings ? regularly buys products and services on behalf of clients These are your expenses. invoice them for these costs after These are your earnings. These are not exactly allowable expenses, but more as the cost of doing your business, so it will be deducted from your earnings. There will be other business expenses which you need to deduct from your earnings and then you arrive at your income/profit. So before you arrive at your income all allowable expenses have been deducted. include on my invoices to clients VAT if you charge VAT. Any charges you require them to pay i.e. credit card charges etc. You don't need to inform clients about any costs you incur for doing your business unless required by law. If you are unsure about something browse the gov.uk website or obtain the services of an accountant. Accounting issues might be costly on your pocket if mistakes are committed." }, { "docid": "278168", "title": "", "text": "\"Several, actually: Maintenance costs. As landlord, you are liable for maintaining the basic systems of the dwelling - structure, electrical, plumbing, HVAC. On top of that, you typically also have to maintain anything that comes with the space, so if you're including appliances like a W/D or fridge, if they crap out you could spend a months' rent or more replacing them. You are also required to keep the property up to city codes as far as groundskeeping unless you specifically assign those responsibilities to your tenant (and in some states you are not allowed to do so, and in many cases renters expect groundskeeping to come out of their rent one way or the other). Failure to do these things can put you in danger of giving your tenant a free out on the lease contract, and even expose you to civil and criminal penalties if you're running a real slum. Escrow payments. The combination of property tax and homeowner's insurance usually doubles the monthly housing payment over principal and interest, and that's if you got a mortgage for 20% down. Also, because this is not your primary residence, it's ineligible for Homestead Act exemptions (where available; states like Texas are considering extending Homestead exemptions to landlords, with the expectation it will trickle down to renters), however mortgage interest and state taxes do count as \"\"rental expenses\"\" and can be deducted on Schedule C as ordinary business expenses offsetting revenues. Income tax. The money you make in rent on this property is taxable as self-employment income tax; you're effectively running a sole proprietorship real-estate management company, so not only does any profit (you are allowed to deduct maintenance and administrative costs from the rent revenues) get added to whatever you make in salary at your day job, you're also liable for the full employee and employer portions of Medicare/Medicaid/SS taxes. You are, however, also allowed to depreciate the property over its expected life and deduct depreciation; the life of a house is pretty long, and if you depreciate more than the house's actual loss of value, you take a huge hit if/when you sell because any amount of the sale price above the depreciated price of the house is a capital gain (though, it can work to your advantage by depreciating the maximum allowable to reduce ordinary income, then paying lower capital gains rates on the sale). Legal costs. The rental agreement typically has to be drafted by a lawyer in order to avoid things that can cause the entire contract to be thrown out (though there are boilerplate contracts available from state landlords' associations). This will cost you a few hundred dollars up front and to update it every few years. It is deductible as an ordinary expense. Advertising. Putting up a \"\"For Rent\"\" sign out front is typically just the tip of the iceberg. Online and print ads, an ad agency, these things cost money. It's deductible as an ordinary expense. Add this all up and you may end up losing money in the first year you rent the property, when legal, advertising, initial maintenance/purchases to get the place tenant-ready, etc are first spent; deduct it properly and it'll save you some taxes, but you better have the nest egg to cover these things on top of everything your lender will expect you to bring to closing (assuming you don't have $100k+ lying around to buy the house in cash).\"" }, { "docid": "257168", "title": "", "text": "\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "522671", "title": "", "text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him." }, { "docid": "158738", "title": "", "text": "Expenses are where the catch is found. Not all expenditures are considered expenses for tax purposes. Good CPAs make a comfortable living untangling this sort of thing. Advice for both of your family members' businesses...consult with a CPA before making big purchases. They may need to adjust the way they buy, or the timing of it, or simply to set aside capital to pay the taxes for the profit used to purchase those items. CPA can help find the best path. That 10k in unallocated income can be used to redecorate your office, but there's still 3k in taxes due on it. Bottom Line: Can't label business income as profit until the taxes have been paid." }, { "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": "66943", "title": "", "text": "\"The bill proposed to \"\"Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up \"\"insourcing\"\" labor back into the U.S.\"\" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below. Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45. However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians. However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate. There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted. Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment). The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example. insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "81046", "title": "", "text": "To be safe you should donate the printer to the charity. Or even better, have the charity purchase it and you donate a equivalent number of dollars directed towards purchasing the equipment. Once your wife no longer volunteers with the charity it should be returned to the charity because they own it." } ]

[ { "docid": "158738", "title": "", "text": "Expenses are where the catch is found. Not all expenditures are considered expenses for tax purposes. Good CPAs make a comfortable living untangling this sort of thing. Advice for both of your family members' businesses...consult with a CPA before making big purchases. They may need to adjust the way they buy, or the timing of it, or simply to set aside capital to pay the taxes for the profit used to purchase those items. CPA can help find the best path. That 10k in unallocated income can be used to redecorate your office, but there's still 3k in taxes due on it. Bottom Line: Can't label business income as profit until the taxes have been paid." }, { "docid": "556109", "title": "", "text": "In the United States investing towards donation is a great idea because you can donate appreciated securities directly rather than donating cash. Notice how much this can benefit you: So you get to both (a) donate untaxed money and then (b) deduct that unrealized money from your income total on your tax return. With the above in mind, a good strategy for investing towards this type of donation would be to pick securities that are likely to increase in market value but not likely to produce any other sort of income. So bonds (which produce lots of interest income), or stocks with dividends, or equity mutual funds (which distribute dividends as capital gains) would all be suboptimal for this purpose. Of course, an even better strategy would be to establish a widely diversified investment portfolio without thought to future donations. Then, once a year (or whenever), evaluate all your investments and find some where the market value has increased. Then donate some of those shares. No special advance planning necessary. Note that your tax consequences could be more complicated depending on your exact situation. Read the section about Capital Gain Property in IRS Pub. 26 for all the details. There may be special limits on the amount you can deduct. Also, donations of short term capital gains are treated much less favorably, so make sure you donate only long term capital gain property." }, { "docid": "318321", "title": "", "text": "My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss." }, { "docid": "275543", "title": "", "text": "This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal." }, { "docid": "175563", "title": "", "text": "In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain!   Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice." }, { "docid": "97348", "title": "", "text": "\"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of \"\"personal use property\"\". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses. Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links.\"" }, { "docid": "598646", "title": "", "text": "\"From Intuit: \"\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\"\" \"\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\"\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\"" }, { "docid": "427631", "title": "", "text": "In addition to having separate income for federal and state tax purposes, things can get really complicated if you ever have capital gains and losses. Suppose you sell taxable stocks for a loss of $5000, and meanwhile, have capital gains of $1000 in your HSA. From the federal perspective, the gains in the HSA don't exist, so you deduct $3000 of the loss, and then carry over the remaining $2000. However, from the state perspective, $1000 of the capital loss went to canceling out the gains in the HSA. Therefore, you only carry over $1000. Assuming you continue to have losses and gains, this will carry on forever. You'll have to track completely independent sets of gains and losses and carryover losses for federal and state purposes forever, even if you no longer use the HSA. Therefore, I'd recommend not investing HSA proceeds at all if you live in a state that doesn't recognize HSAs. It's just too complicated to be worth it, especially since your provider won't track any of this for you." }, { "docid": "382894", "title": "", "text": "I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future." }, { "docid": "522671", "title": "", "text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him." }, { "docid": "334902", "title": "", "text": "There is no reason for you to open a firm. However, it will help you, if you operate separate bank account for business and personal purposes. You can run your business as proprietorship business. Your inward remittance is your income. You can deduct payment made to your colleagues as salary. You should pay them by way of cheques or bank transfer only. You are also entitled to deduct other business expenses provided you keep proper receipt of the same such as broadband connection charges, depreciation on equipment and more importantly, rent on your house. If your total receipt from such income exceeds INR 60,00,000 you will need to withhold tax on payment made to your colleagues as also subject to audit of your accounts. If you want to grow your business, suggest you should take an Import / Export Code in your own name. You can put any further question in this regard." }, { "docid": "33006", "title": "", "text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right." }, { "docid": "417981", "title": "", "text": "\"While the question is very localized, I'll answer about the general principle. My main question is with how far away it is (over 1000 miles), how do I quantify the travel expenses? Generally, \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" expenses are deductible. This is true for business and also true for rentals. But what is necessary and what is ordinary? Is it ordinary that a landlord will manage the property 1000 miles away by himself on a daily basis? Is it ordinary for people to drive 1000 miles every week? I'd say \"\"no\"\" to both. I'd say it would be cheaper for you to hire a local property manager, thus the travel expense would not be necessary. I would say it would be cheaper to fly (although I don't know if its true to the specific situation of the OP, but as I said - its too localized to deal with) rather than drive from Texas to Colorado. If the OP thinks that driving a thousand miles is indeed ordinary and necessary he'll have to justify it to the IRS examiner, as I'm sure it will be examined. 2 trips to the property a year will be a nearly 100% write-off (2000 miles, hotels, etc). From what I understood (and that is what I've been told by my CPA), IRS generally allows 1 (one) trip per year per property. If there's an exceptional situation - be prepared to justify it. Also, keep all the receipts (like gas, hotel, etc.... If you claim mileage but in reality you took a flight - you'll get hit hard by the IRS when audited). Also while I'm up there am I allowed to mix business with pleasure? You cannot deduct personal (\"\"pleasure\"\") expenses, at all. If the trip is mainly business, but you go out at the evening instead of staying at the hotel - that's fine. But if the trip is \"\"business\"\" trip where you spend a couple of hours at your property and then go around having fun for two days - the whole trip may be disallowed. If there's a reasonable portion dedicated to your business/rental, and the rest is pleasure - you'll have to split some of the costs and only deduct the portion attributed to the business activities. You'll have to analyze your specific situation, and see where it falls. Don't stretch the limits too much, it will cost you more on the long run after all the audits and penalties. Can I also write off all travel involved in the purchase of the property? Although, again, the \"\"necessary and ordinary\"\" justification of such a trip is arguable, lets assume it is necessary and ordinary and generally justified. It is reasonable to expect you to go and see the property with your own eyes before the closing (IMHO, of course, I'm not an authority). Such an expense can be either business or investment expense. If its a business expense - its deductible on schedule C. If its an investment expense (if you do buy the property), its added to the cost of the property (capitalized). I'm not a tax adviser or a tax professional, and this is not a tax advice. This answer was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding any tax related penalties that may be imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code. You should seek a professional consultation with a CPA/Attorney(tax) licensed in your State(s) or a Federally licensed Enrolled Agent (EA).\"" }, { "docid": "66943", "title": "", "text": "\"The bill proposed to \"\"Under existing law, employers may take tax deductions for the costs associated with moving jobs out of the country. The proposed legislation would have eliminated that, and used the resulting new revenue to fund a 20 percent tax credit for the costs companies run up \"\"insourcing\"\" labor back into the U.S.\"\" From http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16816660 as found by beermethestrength. I will explain this in an example below. Lets use allen edmonds. I manufacture shoes and sell them in the US. The facts we will assume is Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Tax rate is 10%. Therefore, Profit before tax is $100 -$50 = $50. Tax is $5. Net profit is $45. However, suppose offshoring to Canada saves money. They say please and thank you at every opportunity and the positive work environment allows them to work faster. Correspondingly to make the same number of shoes our costs has decreased because we pay less for labour. The manufacturing cost decreases to $30. However, we incur costs to move such as severance payments to layoff contracted employees. (I promise to hire you and pay $1 a year for 2 years. I fire you at the end of the first year. To be fair, I pay you $1) However, it can be any legitimate expense under the sun. In this case we suppose this moving cost is $10. Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Moving cost is $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax is $100 -$40 = $60. Tax is $6. Net profit is $54. Yay more jobs for Canadians. However, the legislation would have changed this. It would have denied that moving expense if you were moving out of the country. Therefore, we cannot consider $10 worth of expenses for tax purposes. Therefore Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $30. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $30 = $70. Tax is $7. Net profit for tax purposes is $63. However, my accounting/net/real profit is $53. I must deduct the $10 associated with moving. The difference between the two scenarios is $1. In general our net profit changes by our moving cost * our tax rate. There is no tax break associated with moving. In Canadian tax, any business expense in general can be deducted as long as it is legitimate and not specifically denied. I am uncertain but would assume US tax law is similar enough. Moving expenses in general are legitimate and not specifically denied and therefore can be deducted. Offshoring and onshoring are seen as legitimate business activities as in general companies do things to increase profit. (forget about patriotism for the moment). The bill was to make offshoring more expensive and therefore fewer companies would find offshoring profitable. However, republicans defeated this bill in congress. Most likely the house For completeness let us examine what would happen when we onshore (bring jobs from canada to us :( ). In our example, silly unions demand unrealistically high wages and increase our cost of manufacturing to $50 again. We decide to move back to the US because if it is the same everywhere for the sake of silly national pride we move our jobs back to the US. We incur the same moving cost of $10. Therefore we have Revenue or sales is $100. Manufacturing cost is $50. Moving cost of $10. Tax rate is 10%. Profit before tax for tax purposes is $100 - $60 = $40. Tax is $4. However, we are given a 20% tax credit for moving expense. $10 * .2 = 2. The government only assess us tax of 2. Net profit is $38. Tax credits are a one time deal so profit in the future will be $100 -$50 - $5 = $45. Same as the first example. insourcing = onshoring , outsourcing = offshoring for the purposes of this article. Not quite the same in real life.\"" }, { "docid": "544381", "title": "", "text": "\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"" }, { "docid": "360629", "title": "", "text": "\"Do I need to pay taxes in India in this scenario? For India tax purposes, you would still qualify as \"\"Resident Indian\"\". As a resident Indian you have to pay taxes on Global income. It is not relevant whether you transfer the money back to India to keep in US. The income is generated and taxable. Depending on your contract, presumably you are working as a free lance; certain expenses are allowed to be deducted from your income, for example if you purchase equipment to help carry out the work, stay / entertainment costs, etc. Consult a professional CA who should be able to guide you on what is eligible and what is not. The balance along with your other income will be taxed as per tax brackets. There is exemption for certain category of workers, mostly in entertainment industry where such income is not taxable. This does not apply to your case.\"" }, { "docid": "466718", "title": "", "text": "\"From the poster's description of this activity, it doesn't look like he is engaged in a business, so Schedule C would not be appropriate. The first paragraph of the IRS Instructions for Schedule C is as follows: Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business. To report income from a nonbusiness activity, see the instructions for Form 1040, line 21, or Form 1040NR, line 21. What the poster is doing is acting as a nominee or agent for his members. For instance, if I give you $3.00 and ask you to go into Starbucks and buy me a pumpkin-spice latte, you do not have income or receipts of $3.00, and you are not engaged in a business. The amounts that the poster's members are forwarding him are like this. Money that the poster receives for his trouble should be reported as nonbusiness income on Line 21 of Form 1040, in accordance with the instructions quoted above and the instructions for Form 1040. Finally, it should be noted that the poster cannot take deductions or losses relating to this activity. So he can't deduct any expenses of organizing the group buy on his tax return. Of course, this would not be the case if the group buy really is the poster's business and not just a \"\"hobby.\"\" Of course, it goes without saying that the poster should document all of this activity with receipts, contemporaneous emails (and if available, contracts) - as well as anything else that could possibly be relevant to proving the nature of this activity in the event of an audit.\"" }, { "docid": "527776", "title": "", "text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy." }, { "docid": "257703", "title": "", "text": "\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "546509", "title": "", "text": "Costs for home / small business equipment under US$10,000 don't have to be capitalized. They can be expensed (that is, claimed as an expense all in one year.) Unless this printer is one of those behemoths that collates, folds, staples, and mails medium-sized booklets, it cost less than that. Keep track of your costs. Ask the charity to pay you those costs for the product you generate, and then donate that amount of money back to them. This will be good for the charity because they'll correctly account for the cost of printing." } ]

[ { "docid": "427631", "title": "", "text": "In addition to having separate income for federal and state tax purposes, things can get really complicated if you ever have capital gains and losses. Suppose you sell taxable stocks for a loss of $5000, and meanwhile, have capital gains of $1000 in your HSA. From the federal perspective, the gains in the HSA don't exist, so you deduct $3000 of the loss, and then carry over the remaining $2000. However, from the state perspective, $1000 of the capital loss went to canceling out the gains in the HSA. Therefore, you only carry over $1000. Assuming you continue to have losses and gains, this will carry on forever. You'll have to track completely independent sets of gains and losses and carryover losses for federal and state purposes forever, even if you no longer use the HSA. Therefore, I'd recommend not investing HSA proceeds at all if you live in a state that doesn't recognize HSAs. It's just too complicated to be worth it, especially since your provider won't track any of this for you." }, { "docid": "283505", "title": "", "text": "If your net profit is $0, then no, you will not owe income tax as a result of providing this service. But there's a lot more to consider than just that... Before you begin you'll need to decide if this is a business or a hobby. Based on the fact that you don't intend to make a profit, you are probably going to be calling it a hobby for tax purposes. Regardless of whether it is a business or a hobby, since you will be accepting payments from people, you will need to report the income on your tax return. As both a business and a hobby you can deduct all of your expenses to bring your profit down to $0. (Assuming all the expenses are legitimate business/hobby expenses.) The main differences between business and hobby are: If you choose to run as a business you'll likely save quite a bit of money by avoiding the 2% rule, and also by being able to deduct any non-specific-customer expenses and take a loss. Be careful though that you don't go too many years with a business loss or the IRS may re-classify it as a hobby, which may include an audit. If you decide to run as a business you may need to charge a little more than just expenses to attempt to turn a profit, or at least break even." }, { "docid": "354716", "title": "", "text": "Credit card fees on a credit card used for personal expenses are not tax deductible. Credit card fees on a business credit card are deductible on schedule C (or whatever form you're using to report business income and expenses). If you are using the same card for both business and personal ... well, for starters, this is a very bad idea, because it creates exactly the question you're asking. If that's what you're doing, stop, and get separate business and personal cards. If you have separate business and personal cards -- and use the business card only for legitimate business expenses -- then the answer is easy: You can claim a schedule C deduction for any service charges on the business card, and you cannot claim any deduction for any charges on the personal card. In general, though, if you have an expense that is partly business and partly personal, you are supposed to figure out what percentage is business, and that is deductible. In an admittedly brief search, I couldn't find anything specifically about credit cards, but I did find this similar idea on the IRS web site: Generally, you cannot deduct personal, living, or family expenses. However, if you have an expense for something that is used partly for business and partly for personal purposes, divide the total cost between the business and personal parts. You can deduct the business part. For example, if you borrow money and use 70% of it for business and the other 30% for a family vacation, you can deduct 70% of the interest as a business expense. The remaining 30% is personal interest and is not deductible. Refer to chapter 4 of Publication 535, Business Expenses, for information on deducting interest and the allocation rules. (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/deducting-business-expenses) So, PROBABLY, you could add up all the charges you made on the card, figure out how much was for business and how much for personal, calculate the business percentage, and then deduct this percentage of the service fees. If the amount involved is not trivial, you might want to talk to an accountant or a lawyer." }, { "docid": "371717", "title": "", "text": "\"Document how you came to have the stuff in the first place. First to defend against potential government inquiry; and second to establish that you held the asset more than one year, so you qualify for long-term capital gains rate. I wouldn't sell it privately all at once, if you can avoid it. If you can prove you held it more than a year, you should pay the long-term capital gains tax rate, which is fairly low. You'll keep most of it. A huge windfall often goes very badly. People don't change their financial habits, burn through their winnings shockingly fast, overspend it, and wind up deep in debt. At the end of the crazy train, their lives end up worse. That wasn't your question, but you'll do better if you're on guard for that, with good planning and a desire to invest it in things which give you deferred income in the future. That's the cooler thing, when your investments mean you don't have to go to work! I don't mean donate ALL of it to charity. But feel free. If you hold a security more than one year, and donate it to charity, you get a tax deduction for the appreciated value (even though the security didn't actually cost you that). (link) Do not convert the BTC to cash then donate the cash. Donate it as BTC. Your tax deduction works against your highest tax bracket. If you are paying in a 28% tax bracket (your next $100 of income has $28 tax), then for every $100 of charitable donation, you get $28 back on Federal. It does the same to state tax, and you also avoid the 10-15% capital gains tax because you didn't sell the securities. Do your 1040 both ways and note the difference.***** Your charitable deduction of appreciated securities is capped at 30% of AGI. Any excess will carryover and becomes a tax deduction for the next year, and it can carryover for several years. ** Use a donor-advised fund. If you have are donating more than $5000, you don't need to search for a charity that will take Bitcoin, and you also don't need to pick a charity now. Instead, open a special type of giving account called a Donor-Advised Fund. The DAF, itself, is a charity. It specializes in accepting complex donations and liquidating them into cash. The cash credits to your giving account. You take the tax deduction in the year you give to the DAF. Then, when you want to give to a charity, you tell the DAF to donate on your behalf***. You can tell them to give on your behalf anonymously, or merely conceal your address so you don't get the endless charity junk mail. The DAF lets you hold the money in index funds, so your \"\"charity nest egg\"\" can grow with the market. Mine has more than doubled thanks to the market. This money is no longer yours at this point; you can't give it back to yourself, only to licensed charities. The Fidelity Donor Advised Fund makes a big thing of taking Bitcoin, and I really like them. **** I love my DAF, and it has been a charitable-giving workhorse. It turns you into a philanthropist, and that changes you life in ways I cannot describe. Certainly makes me more level-headed about money. Lottery winner syndrome is just not a risk for me (partly because I'm now on the board of charities, and oversee an endowment.) Donating generally will reduce suspicion (criminals don't do that), but donating to a DAF even moreso. Since the DAF would have to return ill-gotten gains, they're involved. Their lawyers will back you up. The prosecutor is up against a billion dollar corporation instead of just you. With Fidelity particularly, Bitcoin is a crusade for them, and their lawyers know how to defend Bitcoin. A Fidelity DAF is a good play for that reason alone IMO. ** The gory details: Presumably you are donating to regular charities or a Donor Advised Fund, and these are \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". Since it's capital gains, you have a 30% limit. If your donation is more than 30% of AGI, or if you have carryover from last year, you use Worksheet 2 in Publication 526. You plug your donations into line 4, then the worksheet grinds through all the math and shows what part you deduct this year and what part you carryover to the next year. *** I specifically asked managers at two DAFs whether they were OK with someone donating a complex asset to the DAF, and immediately giving the entire cash amount to a charity. The DAF doesn't get any fees if you do that. They said not only are they OK with it, most of their donors do exactly that and most DAF accounts are empty. They make it on the 0.6% a year custodial fee on the other accounts, and charitable giving to them. Mind you, you can only donate to 501C3 type charities, what IRS calls \"\"50% limit organizations\"\". This actually protects you from donating to organizations who lie about their status. **** I'm not with Fidelity, but I am a satisfied DAF customer. The DAF funds its overhead by deducting 0.6% per year from your giving account. If you invest the funds in a mutual fund within the DAF, that investment pays the 0.08% to 1.5% expense ratio of the fund. I can live with that. ***** I just Excel'd the value of donating $100 of appreciated security instead of taking it as capital gains income. 28% Fed tax, 15% Fed cap gains, 8% state tax on both. Take the $100 as income, pay $23 in cap gains tax. Donate $100 in securities, the $23 tax goes away since you didn't sell it. Really. The $100 charitable deduction offsets $100 in income, also saving you $36 in regular income tax. Net tax savings $59. However you lost the $100! So you are net $41 poorer. It costs you $41 to donate $100 to charity. This gets better in higher brackets.\"" }, { "docid": "45090", "title": "", "text": "It might not be leniency for first time payers, but they do have programs, some federal some local, that help the poor and elderly complete their tax forms. There are also programs that allow the poor to file electronically for free. For most people the first time they file their taxes they are using the EZ form. Which is rather easy to do, even without the use of either web based or PC based software. The software tools all ask enough questions on the EZ forms to allow the user to know with confidence when their life choices have made it advantageous to use the more complex forms. The web versions of the software allow the taxpayer to start for free, thus reducing their initial investment for the software to zero. Because the first time filer is frequently a teenager the parents are generally responsible for proving that initial guidance. The biggest risk for a young taxpayer might be that the first year that itemizing deductions might be advantageous. They might never consider it, so they over pay. Or they discover in April that if they had only kept a receipt from a charity six months ago they could deduct the donation, so they are tempted to claim the donation without proof. Regarding leniency and assistance there is an interesting tax credit. The Earned Income Tax Credit. it gives a Tax credit to the working poor. They alert people that they need to Check Your Eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit They know that significant numbers of taxpayers fail to claim it. EITC can be a boost for workers who earned $50,270 or less in 2012. Yet the IRS estimates that one out of five eligible taxpayers fails to claim their EITC each year. The IRS wants everyone who is eligible for the credit to get the credit that they’ve earned. The rules for getting the credit are simple, all the information needed to claim it is already on the basic tax forms, but you have to know that you need a separate form to get the credit. But instead of making the credit automatic they say: If you use IRS e-file to prepare and file your tax return, the software will guide you and not let you forget this important step. E-file does the work and figures your EITC for you! and then : With IRS Free File, you can claim EITC by using brand name tax preparation software to prepare and e-file your tax return for free. It's available exclusively at IRS.gov/freefile. Free help preparing your return to claim your EITC is also available at one of thousands of Volunteer Income Tax Assistance sites around the country. To find the volunteer site nearest to you, use the VITA locator tool on IRS.gov. But if you don't use free file you might never know about the form. Apparently it escapes 20% of the people who could claim it." }, { "docid": "402523", "title": "", "text": "HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan." }, { "docid": "544381", "title": "", "text": "\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"" }, { "docid": "255101", "title": "", "text": "\"(Disclaimer: I am not an accountant nor a tax pro, etc., etc.) Yes, a Canadian corporation can function as a partial income tax shelter. This is possible since a corporation can retain earnings (profits) indefinitely, and corporate income tax rates are generally less than personal income tax rates. Details: If you own and run your business through a corporation, you can choose to take income from your corporation in one of two ways: as salary, or as dividends. Salary constitutes an expense of the corporation, i.e. it gets deducted from revenue in calculating corporate taxable income. No corporate income tax is due on money paid out as salary. However, personal income taxes and other deductions (e.g. CPP) would apply to salary at regular rates, the same as for a regular employee. Dividends are paid by the corporation to shareholders out of after-tax profits. i.e. the corporation first pays income tax on taxable income for the fiscal year, and resulting net income could be used to pay dividends (or not). At the personal level, dividends are taxed less than salary to account for tax the corporation paid. The net effect of corporate + personal tax is about the same as for salary (leaving out deductions like CPP.) The key point: Dividends don't have to be paid out in the year the money was earned. The corporation can carry profits forward (retained earnings) as long as it wants and choose to issue dividends (or not) in later years. Given that, here's how would the partial income tax shelter works: At some point, for you to personally realize income from the corporation, you can have the corporation declare a dividend. You'll then have to pay personal income taxes on the income, at the dividend rates. But for as long as the money was invested inside the corporation, it was subject only to lesser corporate tax rates, not higher personal income tax rates. Hence the \"\"partial\"\" aspect of this kind of tax shelter. Or, if you're lucky enough to find a buyer for your corporation, you could qualify for the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption on proceeds up to $750,000 when you sell a qualified small business corporation. This is the best exit strategy; unfortunately, not an easy one where the business has no valuable assets (e.g. a client base, or intellectual property.) * The major sticking-point: You need to have real business revenue! A regular employee (of another company) can't funnel his personally-earned employment income into a corporation just to take advantage of this mechanism. Sorry. :-/\"" }, { "docid": "196374", "title": "", "text": "\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \"\"Business\"\" income, or \"\"Hobby\"\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\"" }, { "docid": "63919", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston. :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the \"\"convenience of the employer\"\" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it. You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions. Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct. So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions.\"" }, { "docid": "212783", "title": "", "text": "\"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other \"\"bad\"\" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces \"\"harmonized\"\" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return. But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances. Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth.\"" }, { "docid": "499189", "title": "", "text": "In theory the integration of taxes make the tax implications of paying salary or dividends equal. This is what happens when you calculate the taxes using a generic tax calculator, however, the theory breaks down in certain cases. If you are earning less than $100k there is very little difference and paying out a salary is usually the better option. In a large stable company the most efficient option is almost always a mix of both. If you are earning more than $100k a year it depends on a number of factors: 1) Are your companies annual earnings over $500,000? In Canada, private companies that earn more than $500,000 annually are taxed at a higher rate than those earning less than $500,000. If the earnings are above $500,000 generally you should reduce the earning to under $500,000 by paying a salary. However, this depends on the province, the other income of the owners are and how much more than $500,000 your company earns. 2) Are you eligible for deductions or benefits only available on earned income? Earned income is income that you have worked for, which does not include dividends. RRSP contribution room, child care expense deductions, CPP, and many other benefits under the CRA rules are only available to people who have an earned income. It is worth taking advantage of these deductions when they are available. 3) Is your company eligible for any tax deductions? The same as with your personal tax deductions and your personal benefits of earning income, having a corporate income is also a benefit. There are a number of tax credits and tax deductions that corporations can take advantage of and when available these should be taken advantage of before paying everything out in salary. Once all these questions are answered the calculation is based on your marginal tax rate and the tax rate of the Corporation. One other reason to have at least a portion of you salary as a dividend is that if you incur capital loss in your corporation you can pass them to your personal taxes. If you were payed 100% in salary this does not work. Other strategies to be more tax efficient: Income splitting (Pay a salary/dividend to yourself, your wife, your children your parents, or anyone you support). Rolling-over property with taxable gains into your private corporation. Buying insurance policies that gives a return of premium or increase your Capital Dividend Account (CDA)." }, { "docid": "459589", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA." }, { "docid": "432545", "title": "", "text": "According to HMRC's manual BIM42105, you can't deduct expenses of this kind when calculating your profits for corporation tax: No deduction is allowed for expenditure not incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes So at the least, the company will have to pay corporation tax on this donation at some point, assuming it ever makes any profits. There's also the risk that HMRC would say that what is really happening is that you are making a personal donation to this person and the company is giving you income to allow you to do it. In that case, you'd be liable to income tax and employees national insurance, and the company liable to employers national insurance. It should then be deductible from corporation tax, though." }, { "docid": "472824", "title": "", "text": "You are either VAT registered or you are not VAT registered. If you are not VAT registered, then you are not allowed to charge customers VAT, and you cannot reclaim VAT that you are paying. You are however allowed to deduct the cost of goods including VAT from your expenses. So if you buy a computer for £1000 + £200 VAT, and you can deduct the computer as an expense to reduce your profits that you pay income tax for, then the expense is £1,200 and not just £1,000. If you are VAT registered, then you MUST charge every customer 20% VAT. Business customers don't mind at all, but private customers will be happier if you don't charge VAT because your bills will be a lot lower. You take all the VAT that you received, then subtract all the VAT that you paid for business expenses and that you have invoices for, and send the remainder to HMRC four times a year. (The reason that businesses don't mind paying VAT is because they can in turn deduct the VAT they pay you from the VAT that they received and for every pound they give you, they give one pound less to HMRC). Note that when you have expenses that are deductible from your profits, you can now only deduct the cost excluding VAT. On the other hand, the VAT you receive doesn't count as income and doesn't lead to profits that you need to pay income tax for. It's your decision whether you want to be VAT registered or not, unless your revenue exceeds some limit (somewhere between £70,000 and £80,000 per year) where you must register for VAT." }, { "docid": "406418", "title": "", "text": "\"The piece is a little misguided at best and poor journalism at worst. The problem lies in the difference between what's deductible for individuals and what's deductible for corporations. The short version of the story is that corporations can deduct a hell of a lot more things than individuals can. Individual deductions are spelled out in the Internal Revenue Code. Stuff like medical expenses (above 7.5% of your AGI), certain educational things, etc. For corporations, the basic rule is that they can deduct any \"\"ordinary and necessary\"\" business expenses. That includes operating, travel, interest, employee, etc. I wish that the article had cited specific sections of the Code if this was some kind of loophole or something, but alas, it appears that they didn't. That leads me to believe that these companies are deducting the portion not paid to the government as a business expense. ~~For what it's worth, I don't believe that a company can deduct those expenses for tax purposes unless it's to \"\"protect their business interests.\"\" My assumption (I don't have the time or desire to search case law right now) is that settlements with the US Government are considered to fall under that definition.~~ **EDIT** - See my comment [here](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/11dbzu/federal_regulators_have_lauded_a_series_of/c6ll7ez) for the relevant Treasury Regulation dealing with this.\"" }, { "docid": "257168", "title": "", "text": "\"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "251649", "title": "", "text": "\"The Form 1040 (U.S. tax return form) Instructions has a section called \"\"Do You Have To File?\"\". Below a certain income, you are not required to file a tax return and pay any tax. This amount of income at which you are required to file depends on several things, including your dependency status (you are a dependent of your parents), your marital status, and other factors. The instructions have charts that show what these numbers are. You would fall under Chart B. Assuming that you are under age 65, unmarried, and not blind, you only have to file when you reach the following conditions: Your unearned income was over $1,050. Your earned income was over $6,300. Your gross income was more than the larger of— $1,050, or Your earned income (up to $5,950) plus $350. (Note: Income from YouTube would count as \"\"earned income\"\" for the purposes above.) However, if you are producing your own videos and receiving revenue from them, you are technically self-employed. This means that the conditions from Chart C also apply, which state: You must file a return if any of the five conditions below apply for 2015. As a self-employed person, you can deduct business expenses (expenses that you incur in producing your product, which is this case is your videos). Once your revenue minus your expenses reach $400, you will need to file an income tax return.\"" }, { "docid": "55108", "title": "", "text": "From what I understand this is what you can do : You need to raise an invoice to your brother's company in USA Your brother makes a payment into your Indian company's bank account using wire transfer straight into a bank account in your company's name. Your brother wont have to pay taxes on the money that he pays you against an invoice as it would be an expense and would not be considered as profit for tax purposes. Once you have the money you can then file your income tax returns after deducting your own expenses etc in India. I hope this helps." } ]

[ { "docid": "401125", "title": "", "text": "Do not provide any personal information. If the debt is not yours, ask the caller to provide all the identifying information they have over the phone to verify whether they have your information, or are just following up on similar names. Even if they have information that is yours, do not provide more information. Always make them tell you what they know. If they provide information that is not yours, simply state that it is not your information and politely end the call. If they persist in calling you, there are local agencies you can report them to. If they have your information, then ask for all of the details of the debt -- who is it owed to, when was the debt incurred, what was the original amount of the debt, what is the current balance, when was the last activity on the account, what is their relation to creditor. Once you know the creditor, you can contact them directly for more information. It is possible they may have written off the account and closed it, selling it to a debt collector in order to get some sort of return on debt. If they truly have a debt that is yours, and you did not incur it, then you will need to file a police report for a case of identity theft. Be prepared for some scrutiny." } ]

[ { "docid": "595651", "title": "", "text": "\"The prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our levels of income. Why should the compensation we owe the community in taxes? LVT and rent(along with their capitalisation into selling prices) are economically one and the same thing. The only difference is who collects. If LVT is an \"\"Income Tax\"\", then so is rent or mortgage repayments. In fact paying for anything is an \"\"Income Tax\"\". The LVT is merely the way by which we equally share the value derived from scarce natural resources. If we don't do that then inequality and dysfunction are baked into our economies and societies. LVT doesn't tax the wealth people create from land but taxes the wealth creating potential of land. It is the arbitrariness of taxing incomes, capital and transactions that causes deadweight losses, whereas the LVT has none. This is because it is set by market (not levels of income) as the amount an individual or firm is prepared to pay for exclusive use of that location. So if you cannot pay the LVT then someone else will. That is not only fair, but the optimally efficient way of allocating resources. This is how a capitalist, free market based economy is supposed to work. Those that opposed the LVT are nothing but Blue Socialists.\"" }, { "docid": "535307", "title": "", "text": "\"It's your business to pay what you owe but it's not your business to determine what you owe. The \"\"Fair Debt Collections Practices act\"\" FDCPA proscribes certain steps creditors must go through to contact you. You appear to not have received any active contact or demand, but you can still cite the FDCPA to make it their problem. Write to the creditor's address (I assume its the hospital, the OP isn't clear), use USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, asking them to validate that you owe this debt by mail in 5 days, as is your right under the FDCPA. If they get back to you and you agree (or its reasonably plausible) you do owe it, pay it especially if it's on the order of $100. At least you will know it is settled at the source. Cross reference to your insurance claims to be sure its not double billed or a miscredited copay, but you may see many legit separate charges from one ER visit (hospital, doctor, anesthesiologist, etc) and it would not be the first time a medical billing system crapped the bed. If you don't hear anything after a few weeks, use the credit report protest process (or write to them, cc: the Federal Trade Commission) contesting the validity of this report. The creditor did not respond to your FDCPA request for validation (copy of the Return Receipt); and you otherwise believe you are current with the hospital. Per the Fair Credit Reporting act, they must investigate. Fight bureaucratic fire with fire: conduct all business by mail, and make liberal use of certified mail return receipts. Its a $6 way to telegraph you know that they have specific federal law timeliness requirements; and you have a federal timestamp signed by someone in their organization.\"" }, { "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": "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": "568013", "title": "", "text": "Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else." }, { "docid": "418001", "title": "", "text": "\"Nobody is going to hold your hands and prepare a structured program, simply because how you deal with this situation is part of the evaluation of your performance. I performed poorly in my first intership because I was really afraid of being perceived as annoying. The guys were not very receptive and when I asked if they could teach me something, they usually explained quickly and without a lot of attention. Dumb as I was, I would try to not annoy anyone anymore, stop asking questions and go back to my chair to create some macros in VBA. When my boss gave me the feedback after some months, it was fucking awful. The whole team said that my posture was too passive and that I should be A LOT MORE agressive. So, don't be afraid to be a little annoying. Ask a shit ton of questions until you understand everything and don't pretend that you understood something (I used to do the classic \"\"mm-hmm...mm-hmm...\"\" when someone was explaining something I wasn't understanting because I was afraid of looking dumb. Don't do that, you aren't fooling anyone). If you feel that there is nothing for you to do, go to your boss and say that to him. If he doesn't find something, go ask someone else (\"\"Hey man, what are you doing there? Seems interesting. Can you teach me when you have the time?\"\") Just for Christ's sake, don't keep your butt in the chair waiting someone to tell you what to do. This is not college anymore.\"" }, { "docid": "520026", "title": "", "text": "You could do a voluntary repossession. While a repossession never looks good on your credit a voluntary repossession is slightly better. A good friend of mine had a situation like this about 11 years ago. She was in an accident didn't have replacement coverage insurance and was left with a large chunk of debt on a wrecked vehicle that she then rolled into a new car. In the end it came down to the simple fact that she could not afford a car loan on a vehicle that never was worth as much as she owed. Since the car was worth less than the loan she really couldn't sell it to fix the problem. She called and arranged a voluntary repossession. She stopped making payments, and parked the car till they came and picked it up. (Took about 4 months and 20 phone calls from her for them to come get it.) In the mean time, I purchased her a much older used but decent car for a couple thousand and she paid me back over the next year. The total she paid me back was less than the money she would have paid in the 4 months it took them to come get the car. In fact by the time they picked up the car she had paid back over half on the car I bought her. Yes the repossession did stay on her credit for seven years but during that time she was approved for a mortgage, cellphone plans, and credit cards etc. Therefore I don't know that it did that much damage to her credit. When her car was sold at auction by the repo company it sold for much less than the loan amount. Technically she was on the hook for the remaining amount. The outstanding balance on the loan was then sold several times to several different collection agencies. Over the years since then she has gotten letters every now and then demanding she pay the amount off, she ignores these. Most of these letters even included very favorable terms (full forgiveness for 20% of the amount) At this point the statute time has run out on the debt so there is no recourse for anyone to collect from her. The statute time limit varies from state to state. Some states it is as long as 10 years in others it is as short as 3 years. What this means is that counting from the date of the repossession, incurrance of debt, last payment, or agreement to pay whichever is later if the statute period has elapsed and the lender/collector has not filed a suit against you by the end of the period then they have effectively abandoned the debt and cannot collect. Find out what that period of time is in your state. If you can avoid the collection agencies till that period runs out you are scott free. You just have to make sure that you do not ever send them any money, or agree to pay them anything as this resets the calendar. If you do not want to wait for the calendar to run out if you wait long enough you will probably be offered favorable terms to pay only a fraction of the remaining amount, you just have to wait it out. Note, I normally would not endorse anyone not paying off their debts. However sometimes it is necessary and it is for this type of situation that we have things like this and bankruptcy." }, { "docid": "214476", "title": "", "text": "\"Interesting question. How is social security funded? The social security system works by using current payroll taxes as funding to pay benefits to retirees. Historically there was always more money coming in then what was being paid out in benefits. This changed at the beginning of March, 2010 when social security started paying out more than it was taking in (this article estimates the exact date to be around March 3 or March 4 - the chart below has the approximate date highlighted with the red circle). Due to the baby boomer generation it is estimated that social security will now be perpetually in the red unless changes are made. The recent reduction in payroll taxes will not help social security solvency. What was done with all the extra money social security collected over the last three decades? The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) was required to purchase special-issue US government bonds with the excess funds. The SSTF was essentially purchasing US government debt with the excess funds. This allowed congress to spend the excess funds. The special-issue funds are different then normal US treasuries in that the SSTF can redeem special-issue bonds at face value at any time (even before maturity). The SSTF is currently holding $2.5 Trillion of these special-issue bonds as assets. What next? Hell if I know. The SSTF was a major purchaser of US debt over the last few decades (to the tune of $2.5 trillion). That changed in 2010. The SSTF is no longer purchasing US debt at the same time the US government is issuing record amounts of debt. The SSTF could begin redeeming its bonds to meet payment obligations. When it redeems the bonds the US treasury must cough up the funds. Where is it the US government going to get the money especially when it is currently borrowing money at record levels? I read many articles that say that we don't have to count SSTF bond holdings as debt since we owe it to ourselves. That always makes me chuckle. The US government owes the SSTF $2.5 Trillion. I'm not the US government so don't count me in the \"\"we\"\" part of \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". I'm also fairly certain I will never see a dime of social security so don't count me in the \"\"ourselves\"\" portion either. Charts were obtained from here.\"" }, { "docid": "227533", "title": "", "text": "You still owe the money because there is a high probability that some other organization bough the account and assets of the failed creditor. That means they will have bought your debt. I have to assume there is language in your note that explains that they might sell your debt. But what should one do if they don't know who bought the entity? You can't pay a non-existent entity, but if you don't have an address, how can you pay the new owner of the debt? First step, is to assume there will be a new owner. A government, a company, an individual; somebody will buy that debt. Read the news and see if you can't figure out what other entity owns your note. You might have to contact them to enquire about where to send payment. Keep records of any such contact. If you put in an honest effort, but just cannot figure out who owns your note, I'd suggest continuing to make regular on-time payments. But put your payments into a new bank account that you open just for this purpose. So when the new owner of the debt does come calling, you'll have reasonable proof you were attempting to pay. You simply settle up from the special account. Any reasonable company will just take the money, and if anybody gets unreasonable and you have to appear in court, you have a paper trail indicating your attempts to honour the debt. You'd have to consult a lawyer if nobody comes asking for the money. There are probably statutes of limitation, but I wouldn't count on that ever happening." }, { "docid": "325587", "title": "", "text": "\"The more I think about this the more I think you are actually better off letting it go to collections. At least then you would be able to agree an affordable repayment schedule based on your real budget, and having a big dent in your credit score because it's gone to collections doesn't actually put you in any worse position (in terms of acquiring credit in the future) than you are now. Whoever is the creditor on your original loan is (IMO) quite unreasonable demanding a payment in full on a given date, especially given that you say you've only been made aware of this debt recently. The courts are usually much more reasonable about this sort of thing and recognise that a payment plan over several years with an affordable monthly payment is MUCH more likely to actually get the creditor their money back than any other strategy. They will also recognise and appreciate that you have made significant efforts to obtain the money. I'm also worried about your statement about how panicked and \"\"ready to give up\"\" you are. Is there someone you can talk to? Around here (UK) we have debt counselling bureaus - they can't help with money for the actual debt itself, but they can help you with strategies for dealing with debt and will explain all parts of the process to you, what your rights and responsibilities are if it does go to court, etc. If you have something similar I suggest you contact them, even just to speak to someone and find out that this isn't the end of the world. It's a sucky situation but in a few years you'll be able to look back and at least laugh wryly at it.\"" }, { "docid": "450783", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, the money you pay in student loan interest is tax deductible, which means as far as the IRS is concerned, you didn't make that money. However, what that saves you on your taxes is a percentage of a percentage; you save the amount of your current marginal rate on the money you paid as interest. Simple example with made-up numbers: Let's say you had a student loan outstanding, and you were making payments of $150 monthly on it. Total payments to said loan in one tax year would be $1800. Of that amount, let's for the sake of argument say that half, $900, was interest. You get your 1098-E with that number on it, and reduce your taxable income by that amount. You're currently doing well, not outstanding but OK, so you're in the 25% tax bracket that most single middle-classers are in. So, your reduction in taxable income of $900 saves you the 25% that those 900 simoleons would have been taxed at, which is $225. So, all told, this loan is a net drain on your disposable income of $1,575, of which $675 is pure cost of capital; you never received a dollar in disbursements to match this amount you're paying, so it's money lost now in return for previous gains. 10 years later, you pay off the debt. Now that $1800 is yours to keep, and to pay full taxes on. You pay $225 more in taxes (actually, because of amortization, the amount of additional taxes has been steadily increasing as the interest portion of the loan payments has reduced) but have the remaining $1575 in your pocket to do something else. While there is good debt and bad debt, debt is debt; whether deductible or not, the IRS will never credit your tax bill in the amount of interest owed (AFAIK; if someone knows of a loan whose interest is a credit instead of a deduction I'm all ears). So, the deduction on this loan reduces your cost of capital to an effective APR of 4.5%, and because it's a student loan and not a mortgage, you don't have to itemize so this is in effect a \"\"free\"\" deduction (even with an FHA mortgage allowing me to deduct interest, property taxes and PMI, and the residual medical costs after insurance of having our new baby, the $11,900 standard deduction for my wife and I was still the better deal this year). But, you're still losing 4.5% per year to interest. That's your break-even; if the money you could use to pay your debt could earn a better return than 4.5%, then invest it, but if not, pay off the loan. Right now, investments that could make you 4.5% are at the bottom edge of a steep increase in risk and variance, so if your expected ROI is close, I'd lean toward paying off the debt.\"" }, { "docid": "267901", "title": "", "text": "\"These agencies consolidate your debt and make it an easy monthly instalment for you. They also try to negotiate with credit cards. They do so for a fee. Other option is to not pay the debt. During this time , expect credit cards to keep sending you bills and reminders and ways to contact you. Once it is not paid for a significant amount of time ( 18 months ) , the lender will \"\"sell\"\" your debt to a collection agency. You will start getting bills from collection agencies. Collection agencies can settle for up to 40 % of the actual debt. So if you had 5 credit cards , you would have 5 different collection agencies trying to get in touch with you. You can call them and tell them that you cannot pay the full amount. They will offer you settlements which you can accept or decline. The longer the unpaid debt , the more the discount they will offer. One very important thing to remember is that the unpaid amount will be sent to you on a 1099-c form . This means you have to recognize this as income. It is applicable to the year when the debt is settled. In a nut shell , you owe 120,000. You don't pay. Credit cards keeps calling you. You don't pay. After 12-18 months , they handover your debt to collection agencies. Collection agencies will try to get in touch with you. Send you lawsuit letters. You call and settle for say 50,000. You pay off 50,000 in 2016. Your debt is settled. But wait you will get 1099-C forms from different agencies totaling 70,000 ( unpaid debt ). You will have to declare that as income and you will owe tax on that. Assuming say 30 % tax you will have to pay up 21,000 as tax to IRS assuming no other income for simplicity. SO what you did was pay up 50 + 21 = 71,000 and settled the debt of 120,000. Your credit score will be much better than if you never paid at all.\"" }, { "docid": "206597", "title": "", "text": "The rebate amount is a non-qualified distribution: IRS Pub 969 describes how the HSA works: Reporting Distributions on Your Return How you report your distributions depends on whether or not you use the distribution for qualified medical expenses (defined earlier). If you use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you do not pay tax on the distribution but you have to report the distribution on Form 8889. However, the distribution of an excess contribution taken out after the due date, including extensions, of your return is subject to tax even if used for qualified medical expenses. Follow the instructions for the form and file it with your Form 1040 or Form 1040NR. If you do not use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you must pay tax on the distribution. Report the amount on Form 8889 and file it with your Form 1040 or Form 1040NR. If you have a taxable HSA distribution, include it in the total on Form 1040 or Form 1040NR, line 21, and enter “HSA” and the amount on the dotted line next to line 21. You may have to pay an additional 20% tax on your taxable distribution. I looked at several plans regarding how to handle mistaken distributions: example A What if I accidentally use my HSA Visa debit card for a non-qualified expense? To fix this problem, just bring that same amount into any local branch and tell us it was a Mistaken Distribution. We can then put the funds back into your HSA and correct the problem. example B You’re allowed to correct mistaken HSA withdrawals when there is clear and convincing evidence that amounts were distributed from an HSA because of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause. You can correct the mistake by repaying the withdrawal no later than April 15 following the first year that you knew or should have known that the withdrawal was a mistake. When a correction is made, the mistaken withdrawal does not have to be included in gross income or be subject to the 6 percent additional tax, and the repayment does not count as an excess contribution. If an error is made by SelectAccount in its role as the administrator, SelectAccount will be responsible for taking appropriate corrective action. Check with your plan trustee on their procedure to fix the mistaken withdrawal." }, { "docid": "380714", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves. Debtors owe creditors. Creditors are, by and large, the banks. Forget about we/ourselves. One thing we are taught in school is that banks earn money on the spread between what a creditor pays, minus what a saver earns in interest on his deposit. In reality, such private savings pretty much do not exist. When someone borrows from the bank, they mostly aren't borrowing another person's savings. The bank is creating *new* currency through the issuance of debt. &gt; The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"does not exist in the system\"\". The way it works is you borrow a dollar, and now you owe a dollar plus the interest on the dollar. Since each new loan creates more debt than currency, the monetary system can never shrink or it implodes. If you mean that the currency is unbacked by any objective measure of value, that is correct. &gt; Therefore, if we tried to pay the debt (like some conservative politicians are fighting for) it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, since most of the debt is owed to the 1% (banks). There is no possibility of repaying it. Both the Red Team and the Blue Team are in on this. If you're worried about the 99% you should be advocating commodity money, because that is the only way to stop theft by inflation. If you're worried about yourself, get informed as to how these plans have played out in history and how you might protect yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "57994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a manager of a charity shop so work with a wide range of unpaid volunteers, which requires an especially soft touch (most of the time, everyone is different) or people will just leave. It takes longer, but the overall results are better and more long-lasting. Think of it like pushing a boat from the docks with your hand, always applying a small pressure to get the boat to gradually move where you want, rather than ramming into the side of a boat with a truck - sure it'll get you there quicker, but will cause lasting damage. It's also best to take it slow, as you need time to learn the business and people. Be clear about your approach with your boss, managing their expectations is important. Anyway, here is what I've learnt in my first year or so doing this job, plus things I've learnt along the way in my previous career as a software engineer (radical career change!) where I've managed people and been managed: 1. Be yourself. Don't pretend to be someone you're not, everyone will see right through you in an instant. You'll change over time as you get used to managing people, that's fine, but always be yourself through that. 1. Say \"\"thank you\"\" to everyone at the end of each day as you say goodbye. Mean it. Think of all the work they've done today for you. 1. Spread the shit evenly. Every job has crap parts, make sure you and everyone else gets their fair share and no more. I regularly hoover, clean the bathroom, wash-up, and so on. 1. Ask, don't tell. If you bark orders, people will do them.. but they'll put no effort into it and you'll distance yourself from them. Ask if they could do something for you. It's a politeness, nobody ever says no unless there is an issue which you need to deal with anyway. 1. Pick your battles. Is it worth moaning at someone for that little infraction? Or can you get over that message another way? i.e. I don't like people having drinks on the till counter, so when I take over to cover for them for a break, I just move it. After a while, no drinks appear on the counter. 1. Be honest. If you don't know, say so.. ask for input. Weigh up the options out loud, then pick one, explain why, and go for it - or better yet, get the person that thought of it working with you (not for you) to implement it. If you're wrong, hold your hand up and try the other suggestion(s). 1. Always take responsibility when things go wrong - that is actually your job. When things go well, use *you* and *we*. If things go badly, sometimes *I*, sometimes *we*, but never *you*. 1. Always be pro-active with money. If you owe your staff money for any reason, chase them to give it to them, never let them chase you. If there even *might* be any problems at all with money, let everyone know as soon as you know. Go out of your way to ensure they get what they're owed *now*, not later. I just did this today actually, I forgot to do expenses for someone and switched over the till so there wasn't enough cash in the new till to cover it.. so I just took it from the money to bank, and marked down why there was a discrepancy on the paperwork and will do the same tomorrow when that doesn't match by the opposite amount. I should not do this at all, but it's the right thing to do. 1. Listen carefully. Often employees have problems but won't bring them up, either they don't think anything will get done, or they don't want to get someone in trouble, or something else. However, if you listen and observe carefully, often there are clues to the things that are bothering them and you'll find ways to tackle them. 1. Don't run a team meeting until you know everyone, if you can avoid it. You don't know shit about how the company works, who the people are, what makes them tick, what they do, and so on. All you'll do is come across as a bit of a tool, and distance yourself from them (as boss). When you do run one, just guide it, don't lead it. Always hand over control of the conversation as much as possible, except of course where you've got things that they need to hear. 1. Never joke about your 'power'. i.e. Don't mess about saying how you'll fire them if blah, or how you'll give them all the shit work, or mention pay jokingly, etc. I had a boss that did that when drunk, not in a serious way at all, and he was very widely hated for pretty well nothing other than that. It served as a constant reminder that he's separate from us. 1. Give people room, but don't be taken for a ride. If someone is late once, fine, I wouldn't even mention it. Late again, maybe I'd make a light joke of it. Late again.. we'll have a chat.. always listen to what they have to say, is there any way you can help? But, don't be taken for a ride. I've had people pick me up on being late the very first time I was late, and you know what, I was more late for that job from then on than I've ever been before or since. 1. Try to get your employees to come up with ideas to move the business forwards. It's very easy to look at a business and say \"\"we need this, that, and the other doing.. like this!\"\". But you need to get your employees to buy into it, or they just won't do it properly. It'll be like getting blood out of a stone to start with, but if you're patient and support their ideas most people will come around. You *need* their input as they know their job better than you. 1. EDIT: Always be clear what you want from people, when. Speak with them about the task(s) before-hand to make sure they're comfortable with it and think it can be done in the time. So many times I've been given tasks with unrealistic deadlines, the manager hasn't wanted to listen to my protests, then wonders why it didn't get done in time. It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know.. so I say go for it and support it completely as a good idea. We tried it for a month, and we made exactly the same amount of money.. sold twice as many books, but no extra cash. So it was valuable to do, and we discovered that maybe 1.49 might be a good option to try. But, far more importantly, they saw their ideas put into action right away, and saw the results of that. It empowered them, which is incredibly important for a wide variety of reasons that are too much to go into here, but basically it makes them feel more respected, enjoy their job more, think more about the business, and so on - you know what it's like when you're empowered, how good it feels. However, it's being empowered with the support that's important, something which you personally going into your new job don't feel you have, which leads to the anxiety and so on I'm sure you're feeling now. Don't put your employees in that position if you can help it. There is also another reason why I outright supported their idea from the offset. It didn't work (although we didn't loose anything) and I thought it wouldn't, but I can say \"\"*we* tried\"\". It wasn't down to that one person, they didn't feel bad that it didn't work because I was right behind it, and it's my job to take responsibility. If it had been *their* idea that had failed, they wouldn't give any ideas ever again, and everyone else would be put off too. As soon as anyone tries to take personal responsibility, and they will, stick to your guns in supporting them.. stronger than ever. Now we're getting a lot of ideas all the time, they're having in-depth discussions amongst each other, they're pro-active, and so on. As a business we're doing much better now because of it.. profits are up 15% from last year and we've only just begun to kick things off, and that's going against a national trend downwards. We've had several critical changes to our shop layout, back-room organisation, results reporting, stock handling processes, and so on.. all from volunteer ideas and feedback. So the 15% is actually the tip of the iceberg, what we've got in place now should allow us to grow more quickly too. And remember, you can make suggestions too of course.. but they're just that, suggestions. Suggest them to your employees, speak with several of them, then get back to them when you've made a decision. Don't say \"\"I'm thinking of trying this\"\", say \"\"I was just thinking.. what about this? Do you think it would work?\"\" and talk about it. Think of arguments against your idea, see if they counter them, and so on. Now.. how many of these changes did I think of before-hand and want to enact? About half.. so we've got a significant number of successful ideas that I personally hadn't thought of, everyone's happier and working harder for the business, and we have a bright future. I have more ideas too, and people listen to and respect them now just like I have with them. I think that's the key to it all really. Show your employees respect, and they'll show you it in return.\"" }, { "docid": "529450", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm hazy on this part: &gt; I say, \"\"Jeez, I'd love to, but I really need all the cash I can get for every deer right now: my kid is out-growing shoes like crazy. Tell you what: if you can write me a promise to pay twelve Loddars in October, I can give that to the shoe-maker.\"\" You groan about the \"\"interest rate\"\" but agree. &gt; &gt;Did a lightbulb just go off? **You and I have once again created *Money***. Twelve loddars now exist in the town economy that *have not been printed by the central bank*. Counting all the money trading hands in the village, there are now (a) all the loddars that have ever been printed, *plus* (b) *twelve more* that you have promised to produce. If we switch out of story mode and into real world mode (I'm the apple guy equivalent), you are a bank that just made me a loan? You've given me $10 and charged me $2 interest? And you've gone and spent that promise of $12 on something? Why are you able to spend that promise? I would have thought you'd just not be able to buy anything for now because you're making a short term sacrifice of giving out your stuff and being without it in order to get more from me later than you could have right now. I'm guessing this is something to do with fractional reserve but I was never clear on that. &gt; ... Now, what happens if another wildfire hits your orchard? Those twelve loddars are destroyed, they are gone, the shoe-maker is twelve loddars poorer, without spending it and without anyone else getting twelve loddars richer. Why do I not still owe you $12? My value engine is gone, but wouldn't you keep my debt on the books and still hold me to it? Wouldn't I have to pick myself up, work somewhere else for a wage or make and sell something else, and pay you money I made over time until the $12 (or more with more interest) was paid off? And has any new money really been created if I work for that money, get it from someone else, and then pay it to you? There's no new money there yet that I can see. Seems like you created new money when somebody else agreed to let you buy things with the promise I wrote you. That sounds like new money. But if my orchard is destroyed and for reasons I'm not clear on (see above), the $12 of value I could have gotten out of it is destroyed, but you already spent the new money, how are you out anything? Seems like you're still up $2. I feel like there is either one too many pieces on the board or one too few and I can't get my head around it. I feel like I have one foot still in the ELI5 example and not all the way out in the real world.\"" }, { "docid": "10180", "title": "", "text": "\"Depending on how you view the loan, it could either be considered an Asset or a Liability. Since you are not charging interest, it might seem more intuitive to create an \"\"Assets:Cash Loan\"\" account, and transfer money to & from it (when you receive payments) like you would with a bank account. Personally, I prefer to think of all loans as liabilities. Whether it's a debt which you owe someone, or a balance which someone else owes you, since it's an 'unsettled' amount I file it under \"\"Liabilities:Loan\"\". Either way, you record the initial balance as a debit from your bank, and then record payments as credits back to your primary account. The only way that income or expenses ever gets involved would be if you charged interest (income) or if you forgave some or all of the loan (expense) at some point in the future.\"" }, { "docid": "42315", "title": "", "text": "Sometimes what happens is that a creditor will hand over accounts to a collection agency for action, and after a period of time, it may be reassigned to yet another collection agency if the first one was not successful. Theoretically, this should not be cause to reset the date of collections on your bureau file, but that very well could have happened here. Another instance when this happens is when someone contacts a creditor about a collection item on their report, either to pay or dispute it. Either way, this restarts the 7-year clock on that collection item, so if a debt is old enough, sometimes the best course of action is to let it go. If a debt has been in collections for 4 years, let's say, and you decide to pay it off now, your score isn't going to improve because you paid the collection enough to offset the effect of having it refreshed on your bureau file. Besides, creditors know how old the debt is, so waiting 4 years to pay it isn't going to win you any favors in their eyes anyway. To your question though, it seems to me the most likely thing is that somehow the debt was refreshed through some action by the creditor or one of the agencies assigned to collect on it. I hope this helps. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "138283", "title": "", "text": "\"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word \"\"saving\"\" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "370334", "title": "", "text": "It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop." } ]

[ { "docid": "273947", "title": "", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"" }, { "docid": "376758", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank you for misunderstanding: &gt;then I shudder to think what an explanation of how the price of money can be derived from plotting IS and LM together and extending it's meeting point into the money market to determine the price of currency would do to your notion of control by powerful offices in government. and embarking upon the very rant I knew you had in you. I am well aware of the Federal Reserve's purpose of controlling the money supply, as is everyone else. You are literally the last one to the party. Your mistaken feeling of superiority is derived from a position of complete ignorance. Your shock and outrage at the most simplistic of economic facts that have been the foundation for understanding international economics since the cold war represents a massive twisting of self education: you have wrested your way out of the dark pit of complete ignorance by reading up on how the economy works, but in a sorrowful twist you have learned this information from biased sources, perhaps the \"\"Abolish the Fed\"\" folks putting around, and instead of taking steps forward into understanding the world of finance you have flipped your lid and assume that you have somehow become Neo in The Matrix and have taken on a faux-intellectual persona in a desperate attempt to assert an identity of superiority over the masses of far more educated people around you who do not react with shock and outrage to things they already knew. **TLDR: You are just a smug asshole who has reacted to basic facts about the economy by incorporating them into making more credible tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, and I hate people like you because you distract from legitimate criticism of the international banking system by acting shocked by what you learned in Economics 101.**\"" }, { "docid": "450783", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, the money you pay in student loan interest is tax deductible, which means as far as the IRS is concerned, you didn't make that money. However, what that saves you on your taxes is a percentage of a percentage; you save the amount of your current marginal rate on the money you paid as interest. Simple example with made-up numbers: Let's say you had a student loan outstanding, and you were making payments of $150 monthly on it. Total payments to said loan in one tax year would be $1800. Of that amount, let's for the sake of argument say that half, $900, was interest. You get your 1098-E with that number on it, and reduce your taxable income by that amount. You're currently doing well, not outstanding but OK, so you're in the 25% tax bracket that most single middle-classers are in. So, your reduction in taxable income of $900 saves you the 25% that those 900 simoleons would have been taxed at, which is $225. So, all told, this loan is a net drain on your disposable income of $1,575, of which $675 is pure cost of capital; you never received a dollar in disbursements to match this amount you're paying, so it's money lost now in return for previous gains. 10 years later, you pay off the debt. Now that $1800 is yours to keep, and to pay full taxes on. You pay $225 more in taxes (actually, because of amortization, the amount of additional taxes has been steadily increasing as the interest portion of the loan payments has reduced) but have the remaining $1575 in your pocket to do something else. While there is good debt and bad debt, debt is debt; whether deductible or not, the IRS will never credit your tax bill in the amount of interest owed (AFAIK; if someone knows of a loan whose interest is a credit instead of a deduction I'm all ears). So, the deduction on this loan reduces your cost of capital to an effective APR of 4.5%, and because it's a student loan and not a mortgage, you don't have to itemize so this is in effect a \"\"free\"\" deduction (even with an FHA mortgage allowing me to deduct interest, property taxes and PMI, and the residual medical costs after insurance of having our new baby, the $11,900 standard deduction for my wife and I was still the better deal this year). But, you're still losing 4.5% per year to interest. That's your break-even; if the money you could use to pay your debt could earn a better return than 4.5%, then invest it, but if not, pay off the loan. Right now, investments that could make you 4.5% are at the bottom edge of a steep increase in risk and variance, so if your expected ROI is close, I'd lean toward paying off the debt.\"" }, { "docid": "525967", "title": "", "text": "Investigate the statute of limitations in your area. 15 years sounds like in most places it is past the allowable time a debt collector can legally collect or report it on your credit report. The statute of limitations means you still owe the debt, but they collector can no longer use the court system to collect it from you. They can file a lawsuit, they will just lose. Please read up on how to handle yourself with a debt that is past the SoL, so that you don't accidentally reset the clock. What I don't know for sure is how that applies to a business, and I cannot remember ever hearing a difference between personal vs business debt, but it is best to consult a lawyer regarding it. References:" }, { "docid": "595651", "title": "", "text": "\"The prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our levels of income. Why should the compensation we owe the community in taxes? LVT and rent(along with their capitalisation into selling prices) are economically one and the same thing. The only difference is who collects. If LVT is an \"\"Income Tax\"\", then so is rent or mortgage repayments. In fact paying for anything is an \"\"Income Tax\"\". The LVT is merely the way by which we equally share the value derived from scarce natural resources. If we don't do that then inequality and dysfunction are baked into our economies and societies. LVT doesn't tax the wealth people create from land but taxes the wealth creating potential of land. It is the arbitrariness of taxing incomes, capital and transactions that causes deadweight losses, whereas the LVT has none. This is because it is set by market (not levels of income) as the amount an individual or firm is prepared to pay for exclusive use of that location. So if you cannot pay the LVT then someone else will. That is not only fair, but the optimally efficient way of allocating resources. This is how a capitalist, free market based economy is supposed to work. Those that opposed the LVT are nothing but Blue Socialists.\"" }, { "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": "366597", "title": "", "text": "Short Answer Collections agencies and the businesses they collect for are two different animals. If you don't want this to hurt your credit I suggest you deal directly with the hospital. Pay the bill, but prior to paying it get something in writing that specifically says that this will not be reported onto your credit. That is of course if the hospital even lets you pay them directly. Usually once something is sold to a collections company it's written off. Long Answer Credit reports are kind of a nightmare to deal with. The hospital just wants their money so they will sell debt off to collections companies. The collections companies want to make money on the debt they've bought so they will do what ever it takes to get it out of you, including dinging your credit report. The credit bureaus are the biggest nightmare to deal with of all. Once something is reported on your credit history they do little to nothing to remove it. You can report it online but this is a huge mistake because when you report online you wave your rights to sue the credit bureaus if they don't investigate the matter properly. This of course leads to massive amounts of claims being under investigated. So what are your options once something hits your credit history? I know this all sounds bleak but the reason I go into such depth is that they likely have already reported it to the credit bureaus and you just don't see it reported yet. Good luck to you. Get a bottle of aspirin." }, { "docid": "62109", "title": "", "text": "I imagine the same results would occur as with any other business that is owed money. For a short period the company will try to collect their debts directly from the consumer. If unsuccessful, the company may then sell their right to the debt over to a collections agency. The collection agency will then pursue more aggressive collections tactics and/or legal action to collect." }, { "docid": "227533", "title": "", "text": "You still owe the money because there is a high probability that some other organization bough the account and assets of the failed creditor. That means they will have bought your debt. I have to assume there is language in your note that explains that they might sell your debt. But what should one do if they don't know who bought the entity? You can't pay a non-existent entity, but if you don't have an address, how can you pay the new owner of the debt? First step, is to assume there will be a new owner. A government, a company, an individual; somebody will buy that debt. Read the news and see if you can't figure out what other entity owns your note. You might have to contact them to enquire about where to send payment. Keep records of any such contact. If you put in an honest effort, but just cannot figure out who owns your note, I'd suggest continuing to make regular on-time payments. But put your payments into a new bank account that you open just for this purpose. So when the new owner of the debt does come calling, you'll have reasonable proof you were attempting to pay. You simply settle up from the special account. Any reasonable company will just take the money, and if anybody gets unreasonable and you have to appear in court, you have a paper trail indicating your attempts to honour the debt. You'd have to consult a lawyer if nobody comes asking for the money. There are probably statutes of limitation, but I wouldn't count on that ever happening." }, { "docid": "57994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a manager of a charity shop so work with a wide range of unpaid volunteers, which requires an especially soft touch (most of the time, everyone is different) or people will just leave. It takes longer, but the overall results are better and more long-lasting. Think of it like pushing a boat from the docks with your hand, always applying a small pressure to get the boat to gradually move where you want, rather than ramming into the side of a boat with a truck - sure it'll get you there quicker, but will cause lasting damage. It's also best to take it slow, as you need time to learn the business and people. Be clear about your approach with your boss, managing their expectations is important. Anyway, here is what I've learnt in my first year or so doing this job, plus things I've learnt along the way in my previous career as a software engineer (radical career change!) where I've managed people and been managed: 1. Be yourself. Don't pretend to be someone you're not, everyone will see right through you in an instant. You'll change over time as you get used to managing people, that's fine, but always be yourself through that. 1. Say \"\"thank you\"\" to everyone at the end of each day as you say goodbye. Mean it. Think of all the work they've done today for you. 1. Spread the shit evenly. Every job has crap parts, make sure you and everyone else gets their fair share and no more. I regularly hoover, clean the bathroom, wash-up, and so on. 1. Ask, don't tell. If you bark orders, people will do them.. but they'll put no effort into it and you'll distance yourself from them. Ask if they could do something for you. It's a politeness, nobody ever says no unless there is an issue which you need to deal with anyway. 1. Pick your battles. Is it worth moaning at someone for that little infraction? Or can you get over that message another way? i.e. I don't like people having drinks on the till counter, so when I take over to cover for them for a break, I just move it. After a while, no drinks appear on the counter. 1. Be honest. If you don't know, say so.. ask for input. Weigh up the options out loud, then pick one, explain why, and go for it - or better yet, get the person that thought of it working with you (not for you) to implement it. If you're wrong, hold your hand up and try the other suggestion(s). 1. Always take responsibility when things go wrong - that is actually your job. When things go well, use *you* and *we*. If things go badly, sometimes *I*, sometimes *we*, but never *you*. 1. Always be pro-active with money. If you owe your staff money for any reason, chase them to give it to them, never let them chase you. If there even *might* be any problems at all with money, let everyone know as soon as you know. Go out of your way to ensure they get what they're owed *now*, not later. I just did this today actually, I forgot to do expenses for someone and switched over the till so there wasn't enough cash in the new till to cover it.. so I just took it from the money to bank, and marked down why there was a discrepancy on the paperwork and will do the same tomorrow when that doesn't match by the opposite amount. I should not do this at all, but it's the right thing to do. 1. Listen carefully. Often employees have problems but won't bring them up, either they don't think anything will get done, or they don't want to get someone in trouble, or something else. However, if you listen and observe carefully, often there are clues to the things that are bothering them and you'll find ways to tackle them. 1. Don't run a team meeting until you know everyone, if you can avoid it. You don't know shit about how the company works, who the people are, what makes them tick, what they do, and so on. All you'll do is come across as a bit of a tool, and distance yourself from them (as boss). When you do run one, just guide it, don't lead it. Always hand over control of the conversation as much as possible, except of course where you've got things that they need to hear. 1. Never joke about your 'power'. i.e. Don't mess about saying how you'll fire them if blah, or how you'll give them all the shit work, or mention pay jokingly, etc. I had a boss that did that when drunk, not in a serious way at all, and he was very widely hated for pretty well nothing other than that. It served as a constant reminder that he's separate from us. 1. Give people room, but don't be taken for a ride. If someone is late once, fine, I wouldn't even mention it. Late again, maybe I'd make a light joke of it. Late again.. we'll have a chat.. always listen to what they have to say, is there any way you can help? But, don't be taken for a ride. I've had people pick me up on being late the very first time I was late, and you know what, I was more late for that job from then on than I've ever been before or since. 1. Try to get your employees to come up with ideas to move the business forwards. It's very easy to look at a business and say \"\"we need this, that, and the other doing.. like this!\"\". But you need to get your employees to buy into it, or they just won't do it properly. It'll be like getting blood out of a stone to start with, but if you're patient and support their ideas most people will come around. You *need* their input as they know their job better than you. 1. EDIT: Always be clear what you want from people, when. Speak with them about the task(s) before-hand to make sure they're comfortable with it and think it can be done in the time. So many times I've been given tasks with unrealistic deadlines, the manager hasn't wanted to listen to my protests, then wonders why it didn't get done in time. It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know.. so I say go for it and support it completely as a good idea. We tried it for a month, and we made exactly the same amount of money.. sold twice as many books, but no extra cash. So it was valuable to do, and we discovered that maybe 1.49 might be a good option to try. But, far more importantly, they saw their ideas put into action right away, and saw the results of that. It empowered them, which is incredibly important for a wide variety of reasons that are too much to go into here, but basically it makes them feel more respected, enjoy their job more, think more about the business, and so on - you know what it's like when you're empowered, how good it feels. However, it's being empowered with the support that's important, something which you personally going into your new job don't feel you have, which leads to the anxiety and so on I'm sure you're feeling now. Don't put your employees in that position if you can help it. There is also another reason why I outright supported their idea from the offset. It didn't work (although we didn't loose anything) and I thought it wouldn't, but I can say \"\"*we* tried\"\". It wasn't down to that one person, they didn't feel bad that it didn't work because I was right behind it, and it's my job to take responsibility. If it had been *their* idea that had failed, they wouldn't give any ideas ever again, and everyone else would be put off too. As soon as anyone tries to take personal responsibility, and they will, stick to your guns in supporting them.. stronger than ever. Now we're getting a lot of ideas all the time, they're having in-depth discussions amongst each other, they're pro-active, and so on. As a business we're doing much better now because of it.. profits are up 15% from last year and we've only just begun to kick things off, and that's going against a national trend downwards. We've had several critical changes to our shop layout, back-room organisation, results reporting, stock handling processes, and so on.. all from volunteer ideas and feedback. So the 15% is actually the tip of the iceberg, what we've got in place now should allow us to grow more quickly too. And remember, you can make suggestions too of course.. but they're just that, suggestions. Suggest them to your employees, speak with several of them, then get back to them when you've made a decision. Don't say \"\"I'm thinking of trying this\"\", say \"\"I was just thinking.. what about this? Do you think it would work?\"\" and talk about it. Think of arguments against your idea, see if they counter them, and so on. Now.. how many of these changes did I think of before-hand and want to enact? About half.. so we've got a significant number of successful ideas that I personally hadn't thought of, everyone's happier and working harder for the business, and we have a bright future. I have more ideas too, and people listen to and respect them now just like I have with them. I think that's the key to it all really. Show your employees respect, and they'll show you it in return.\"" }, { "docid": "486729", "title": "", "text": "Someone else might be able to provide more details - but generally yes, of course. International corporations can pursue debt collection across borders - whether or not they do is a matter of convenience rather than law. My understanding is that a company's ability to report on your credit report is dependent on their membership in Equifax, USA etc. - so while most of your credit is country by country, international companies or companies with any relationship in other countries can follow you cross-border if they find out your new address and report the debt w/ that address. Since virtually every major company has some American affiliate, I wouldn't hold my breath that you can escape it indefinitely ESPECIALLY since you don't already have the debt, and have the power to actually pay for the service that you're using. Also - this is an incredibly scummy thing to do, and no matter how you dress it up as a financial decision it's just theft. Would you leave the country without paying your landlord? Without paying for groceries or other physical goods? Why is stealing from a telecom company any different?" }, { "docid": "214476", "title": "", "text": "\"Interesting question. How is social security funded? The social security system works by using current payroll taxes as funding to pay benefits to retirees. Historically there was always more money coming in then what was being paid out in benefits. This changed at the beginning of March, 2010 when social security started paying out more than it was taking in (this article estimates the exact date to be around March 3 or March 4 - the chart below has the approximate date highlighted with the red circle). Due to the baby boomer generation it is estimated that social security will now be perpetually in the red unless changes are made. The recent reduction in payroll taxes will not help social security solvency. What was done with all the extra money social security collected over the last three decades? The Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) was required to purchase special-issue US government bonds with the excess funds. The SSTF was essentially purchasing US government debt with the excess funds. This allowed congress to spend the excess funds. The special-issue funds are different then normal US treasuries in that the SSTF can redeem special-issue bonds at face value at any time (even before maturity). The SSTF is currently holding $2.5 Trillion of these special-issue bonds as assets. What next? Hell if I know. The SSTF was a major purchaser of US debt over the last few decades (to the tune of $2.5 trillion). That changed in 2010. The SSTF is no longer purchasing US debt at the same time the US government is issuing record amounts of debt. The SSTF could begin redeeming its bonds to meet payment obligations. When it redeems the bonds the US treasury must cough up the funds. Where is it the US government going to get the money especially when it is currently borrowing money at record levels? I read many articles that say that we don't have to count SSTF bond holdings as debt since we owe it to ourselves. That always makes me chuckle. The US government owes the SSTF $2.5 Trillion. I'm not the US government so don't count me in the \"\"we\"\" part of \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". I'm also fairly certain I will never see a dime of social security so don't count me in the \"\"ourselves\"\" portion either. Charts were obtained from here.\"" }, { "docid": "486630", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't think the article is accurate. From https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/default#consequences Your student loan debt will increase because of the late fees, additional interest, court costs, collection fees, attorney’s fees, and any other costs associated with the collection process. Most stories of collection agencies having a debt start with \"\"I owed $2000\"\" and the collection agency says \"\"It's now $4000\"\" due to interest, late fees, collection fees, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "337165", "title": "", "text": "how can I keep my website running for posterity after I die? If this is the real problem, incorporate a non-profit corporation or have a lawyer set up a foundation. Those will survive after your death and their bank accounts with them. You might even find someone willing to do this for you. It sounds like a neat business. Collect the ad revenue, charge a fee, pay the web hosting. Heck, this is a decent deal for a web host. Provide the web hosting; collect the ad revenue." }, { "docid": "403450", "title": "", "text": "I agree with the other answers here. You need to pay off your debts first, so that you can take the money you would have been spending on debt payments and make retirement contributions instead. The longer they hang around, the more you pay in interest and the more they are a risk to you. Imagine if you or your spouse were laid off, which is better scenario: having to pay for your necessities plus debts or your necessities alone? Just focus on one goal at a time, and you will do well. And the best way for you and your new spouse is to have the same financial goals and a huge part of that agreeing on a budget each month and being flexible. Don't use it to control your spouse, you each have a vote. I have not used Vangaurd, but have heard good things about them. I would do some research before investing with them or anyone else for that matter. What you want to find when it comes to investing is someone with the heart of a teacher, not a product peddler. If you have someone who is pushing financial products, without explaining (A) how they work, and (B) how they fit your situation, then RUN AWAY and find someone else who will do those two things." }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "498955", "title": "", "text": "You should really talk to a lawyer about criminal concerns. There may be some. Does USA credit score transfer to other countries? The USA doesn't do anything with credit scores. In the USA credit records are maintained by private companies who provide the information to your creditor. There's no legal limitation for the creditors to be within USA, only that you allow access. So bottom line - technically it is possible for foreign creditors to get that information. If you don't have local credit score, it is likely that they will. Will someone come after me? Depends on the loan managers. Civil suite is possible, since you cannot discharge student loans in bankruptcy. How likely is it? Probably not very likely. Could I be extradited? Only if a criminal complaint is filed and the country you're at has an extradition agreement with the US. Would I be arrested if I ever came back to visit a family member? I'm not sure on this. I believe it is possible for a lender to have your passport taken by a court, but I don't think you can be actually arrested unless there's a criminal charge. But as I said - I believe your passport may be taken away from you when you come to the US, to prevent you fleeing without paying the debt. Would someone go after my family to collect the debts? Can they do that? Unless they co-signed, or they have control over your assets - unlikely. Could the USA somehow garnish my pay in another country? Yes, if a court decides so. That would have to be a court in that country though. In addition: The US can freeze your assets abroad if you keep them in a FATCA-compliant institution (which is almost any bank, nowadays). Also, when you die, the US may (and probably will) demand a portion of your estate to pay the debt. Talk to a lawyer about additional issues and concerns." }, { "docid": "418001", "title": "", "text": "\"Nobody is going to hold your hands and prepare a structured program, simply because how you deal with this situation is part of the evaluation of your performance. I performed poorly in my first intership because I was really afraid of being perceived as annoying. The guys were not very receptive and when I asked if they could teach me something, they usually explained quickly and without a lot of attention. Dumb as I was, I would try to not annoy anyone anymore, stop asking questions and go back to my chair to create some macros in VBA. When my boss gave me the feedback after some months, it was fucking awful. The whole team said that my posture was too passive and that I should be A LOT MORE agressive. So, don't be afraid to be a little annoying. Ask a shit ton of questions until you understand everything and don't pretend that you understood something (I used to do the classic \"\"mm-hmm...mm-hmm...\"\" when someone was explaining something I wasn't understanting because I was afraid of looking dumb. Don't do that, you aren't fooling anyone). If you feel that there is nothing for you to do, go to your boss and say that to him. If he doesn't find something, go ask someone else (\"\"Hey man, what are you doing there? Seems interesting. Can you teach me when you have the time?\"\") Just for Christ's sake, don't keep your butt in the chair waiting someone to tell you what to do. This is not college anymore.\"" }, { "docid": "84036", "title": "", "text": "\"Ditto Nate Eldredge in many ways, but let me add some other thoughts. BTW there are not four types of account, but five. You're forgetting equity, also called capital. Would it be possible to design an accounting system that does not have 5 types of accounts, maybe is simpler in other ways, and is internally consistent and logical? I'm sure it is. But what's the advantage? As Nate points out, the existing system has been in use for hundreds of years. Lots of people know how it works and understand it. I'd add: People have long since worked out how to deal with all the common situations and 99% of the odd cases you're likely to hit. If you invent your own system, you're starting from scratch. You'd have to come up with conventions to handle all sorts of situations. How do I record buying a consumable with cash? How do I record buying a capital asset with credit? How do I record paying off debts? How do I record depreciation? Etc etc. If you worked at it long and hard enough and you're a reasonably bright guy, maybe you could come up with solutions to all the problems. But why? If you were approaching this saying, \"\"I see these flaws in the way accounting is done today. I have an idea for a new, better way to do accounting\"\", I'd say good luck, you have a lot of work ahead of you working out all the details to make a fully functioning system, and then persuading others to use it, but if you really do have a better idea, maybe you can revolutionize the world of accounting. But, \"\"The present system is too much trouble and I don't want to bother to learn it\"\" ... I think that's a mistake. The work involved in inventing your own system is going to end up being way more than what it would take to learn the existing system. As to, Aren't liabilities a lot like assets? Well, in a sense I suppose. A credit card is like a checking account in that you can use it to pay for things. But they're very different, too. From an accounting point of view, with a checking account you buy something and then the money is gone, so there's one transaction: reduce cash and increase office supplies or whatever. But with a credit card there has to be a second transaction, when you pay off the charge: So, step 1, increase debt and increase office supplies; step 2, decrease debt and decrease cash. Credit cards charge interest, well you don't pay interest to use your own cash. Etc. One of the beauties of double-entry book-keeping is that every transaction involves a debit and a credit of equal amounts (or a set of debits and credits where the total of the debits equals the total of the credits). If you combine assets and liabilities into, whatever you call it, \"\"balance accounts\"\" say, then some transactions would involve a matching debit and credit while others would involve a positive debit and a matching negative debit and no credit. I'm sure you could make such a system work, but one of the neat built-in protections against error is lost. There's a very logical distinction between things that you have or that others owe you, and things that you owe to others. It makes a lot of sense to want to list them separately and manage them separately. I think you'd pretty quickly find yourself saying, \"\"well, we have two types of balance accounts, those that represent things we have and which normally have positive balances, which we list on chart A, and those that represent things we owe and which normally have negative balances, which we list on chart B\"\". And before you know it you've just reinvented assets and liabilities.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "307315", "title": "", "text": "I can only speak for germany/europe. Inkasso companies/lawyer would write a letter with a bill, those letters have register numbers. If in doubt, one would call the company, ask who is the debtor/what is the origin of the bill. I certainly would not react on a phone call. However, if an official entity or lawyer is contacting you, you have to take action asap, at least calling them." } ]

[ { "docid": "132512", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Most other people would actually get a better deal than me in a private road system. How much of a better deal? Give me some estimates, any numbers at all. Because I can't imagine how a for-profit road can be any cheaper than a not-for-profit road. &gt; I don't think the Federal government should do anything beyond protect your basic rights. Most roads aren't the federal government. In fact very little are. The interstate system makes up like 1% of the roads. Does this mean you're cool with states and counties taking over the road system? &gt;I'd gladly pay more because I'm choosing to pay more than be forced to pay That sounds like an awful way to look at it. You're willing to pay for the privileged of someone else not getting something paid for? I know this is your opinion, but you have to understand why this couldn't possibly be appealing to very many people." }, { "docid": "568013", "title": "", "text": "Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else." }, { "docid": "68361", "title": "", "text": "I have this problem with my parents. They have stuff that they inherited or collected, and they have memories of them, and they want their kids to have them. The problem is, we don't have those memories. We didn't grow up with the stuff they have now. So, while it's nice stuff, it's just that: Stuff. I don't need more stuff. I have no place to put their stuff. I can't afford to store their stuff. It points to the whole issue of materialism. What is the point? One day you're going to die, and someone else will have to deal with all the stuff you collected." }, { "docid": "138283", "title": "", "text": "\"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word \"\"saving\"\" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline.\"" }, { "docid": "486729", "title": "", "text": "Someone else might be able to provide more details - but generally yes, of course. International corporations can pursue debt collection across borders - whether or not they do is a matter of convenience rather than law. My understanding is that a company's ability to report on your credit report is dependent on their membership in Equifax, USA etc. - so while most of your credit is country by country, international companies or companies with any relationship in other countries can follow you cross-border if they find out your new address and report the debt w/ that address. Since virtually every major company has some American affiliate, I wouldn't hold my breath that you can escape it indefinitely ESPECIALLY since you don't already have the debt, and have the power to actually pay for the service that you're using. Also - this is an incredibly scummy thing to do, and no matter how you dress it up as a financial decision it's just theft. Would you leave the country without paying your landlord? Without paying for groceries or other physical goods? Why is stealing from a telecom company any different?" }, { "docid": "42315", "title": "", "text": "Sometimes what happens is that a creditor will hand over accounts to a collection agency for action, and after a period of time, it may be reassigned to yet another collection agency if the first one was not successful. Theoretically, this should not be cause to reset the date of collections on your bureau file, but that very well could have happened here. Another instance when this happens is when someone contacts a creditor about a collection item on their report, either to pay or dispute it. Either way, this restarts the 7-year clock on that collection item, so if a debt is old enough, sometimes the best course of action is to let it go. If a debt has been in collections for 4 years, let's say, and you decide to pay it off now, your score isn't going to improve because you paid the collection enough to offset the effect of having it refreshed on your bureau file. Besides, creditors know how old the debt is, so waiting 4 years to pay it isn't going to win you any favors in their eyes anyway. To your question though, it seems to me the most likely thing is that somehow the debt was refreshed through some action by the creditor or one of the agencies assigned to collect on it. I hope this helps. Good luck!" }, { "docid": "267901", "title": "", "text": "\"These agencies consolidate your debt and make it an easy monthly instalment for you. They also try to negotiate with credit cards. They do so for a fee. Other option is to not pay the debt. During this time , expect credit cards to keep sending you bills and reminders and ways to contact you. Once it is not paid for a significant amount of time ( 18 months ) , the lender will \"\"sell\"\" your debt to a collection agency. You will start getting bills from collection agencies. Collection agencies can settle for up to 40 % of the actual debt. So if you had 5 credit cards , you would have 5 different collection agencies trying to get in touch with you. You can call them and tell them that you cannot pay the full amount. They will offer you settlements which you can accept or decline. The longer the unpaid debt , the more the discount they will offer. One very important thing to remember is that the unpaid amount will be sent to you on a 1099-c form . This means you have to recognize this as income. It is applicable to the year when the debt is settled. In a nut shell , you owe 120,000. You don't pay. Credit cards keeps calling you. You don't pay. After 12-18 months , they handover your debt to collection agencies. Collection agencies will try to get in touch with you. Send you lawsuit letters. You call and settle for say 50,000. You pay off 50,000 in 2016. Your debt is settled. But wait you will get 1099-C forms from different agencies totaling 70,000 ( unpaid debt ). You will have to declare that as income and you will owe tax on that. Assuming say 30 % tax you will have to pay up 21,000 as tax to IRS assuming no other income for simplicity. SO what you did was pay up 50 + 21 = 71,000 and settled the debt of 120,000. Your credit score will be much better than if you never paid at all.\"" }, { "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": "325587", "title": "", "text": "\"The more I think about this the more I think you are actually better off letting it go to collections. At least then you would be able to agree an affordable repayment schedule based on your real budget, and having a big dent in your credit score because it's gone to collections doesn't actually put you in any worse position (in terms of acquiring credit in the future) than you are now. Whoever is the creditor on your original loan is (IMO) quite unreasonable demanding a payment in full on a given date, especially given that you say you've only been made aware of this debt recently. The courts are usually much more reasonable about this sort of thing and recognise that a payment plan over several years with an affordable monthly payment is MUCH more likely to actually get the creditor their money back than any other strategy. They will also recognise and appreciate that you have made significant efforts to obtain the money. I'm also worried about your statement about how panicked and \"\"ready to give up\"\" you are. Is there someone you can talk to? Around here (UK) we have debt counselling bureaus - they can't help with money for the actual debt itself, but they can help you with strategies for dealing with debt and will explain all parts of the process to you, what your rights and responsibilities are if it does go to court, etc. If you have something similar I suggest you contact them, even just to speak to someone and find out that this isn't the end of the world. It's a sucky situation but in a few years you'll be able to look back and at least laugh wryly at it.\"" }, { "docid": "567498", "title": "", "text": "\"I would start with actually talking to the collection agency. Say what you are saying here, namely: \"\"I'm willing to pay the debt if the creditor can prove to me that I owe them\"\". You can also talk to the health facility, ask them for information or records. You can start there and see what happens. Once you are ready to pay the debt you can negotiate to have the negative mark removed from your report. It really depends on the collection agency. They could be reasonable, or the could be total scum.\"" }, { "docid": "576082", "title": "", "text": "Here's your problem: The debt is valid and it is your debt, regardless of your arrangement with the insurance company. The insurance company (possibly) owes you money, and you owe the Doctor money. You are stuck in the middle, and in the end it doesn't matter whether the insurance company pays as to whether you owe the money. Don't ignore them. Also, disputing the debt it pointless because the truth is that you do owe the debt. The insurance company may owe you money (which is in dispute), but the debt to your medical provider is your own. You are just stuck in the middle. It sucks, but is pretty common. I think the best you can do is keep working on the insurance company and responding to the bill collectors letting them know that you are working on it and will need to pay late. In theory they deal with this a lot and probably understand, not that it will make them lay off you in the meantime. In the end it is possible you might have to sue the insurance company to get the money. One thing to be careful about: If the debt is fairly old (several years) you may want to avoid making partial payments because if this goes on your credit report, that payment may extend the period where the negative information can appear on your credit history." }, { "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": "253705", "title": "", "text": "\"US based so I don't know how closely this translates to the UK, but generally speaking there are three things that contribute to a strong credit score. Length/volume of credit history. This is a combination of how many accounts appear in your history along with how long they have been open. Having a series of accounts that were maintained in good standing looks better than only having one. Maintaining an account in good standing for a prolonged period (3+ years) is better than a bunch of short term items. \"\"Ideally\"\" your credit history should contain a mix of term loans that were paid per contract and a few (1?) revolving account that shows ongoing use. The goal is to show that you can handle ongoing obligations responsibly, and manage multiple things at the same time. Utilization. Or how much you currently owe vs how much people have agreed to lend you. Being close to your limits raises questions about whether or not you can really handle the additional debt. Having large availability raises questions about whether you would be able to handle it if you suddenly maxed things out. Finding the correct middle point can be challenging, the numbers I have seen thrown around most by the \"\"experts\"\" is 20-30% utilization. Recent Activity. Or how much new debt have you taken on? If someone is opening lots of new accounts it raises red flags. Shopping around for a deal on a auto loan or mortgage before settling on one is fine. Opening 5 new credit lines in the past 6 months, probably going to knock you down a bit. One of the concerns here is have you had the accounts long enough to demonstrate that you will be able to handle them in the long term. One route that was suggested to me in my early years was to go take out a 6mo loan from a bank, and just place the money in a CD while I made the payments. Then repeat with a longer term. Worst case, you can cash out the CD to pay off the loan in an emergency, but otherwise it helps show the type of history they are looking for. All that said, I have to agree with Pete B's answer. Don't play the credit game if you don't really need to. Or play it just enough to stay in the game and plan your finances to avoid relying on it. (Advice I wish I had taken long ago.)\"" }, { "docid": "301194", "title": "", "text": "\"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"" }, { "docid": "547866", "title": "", "text": "I asked this question in another sub, but I thought I might also get answers here. I was just wondering how pension funds or investment firms calculate the interest that they give to their members or clients in the US, or whichever country you are from. I ask this because I have a gut feeling that the national pension fund in my country does it the wrong way and is basically cheating people, so I wanted to make a comparison with other countries. Forgive me if I'm wrong and there's nothing to worry about. OK, so what they do is collect money in a given financial year, which starts in July and ends in June. Let's say they collect 100 million in 2010-11. They then invest this 100 million in the year July 2011 - June 2012. After deducting admin costs and all that, interest for this 2010-11 money is declared on October 1st 2012. That basically means that money someone contributed in July 2010 will earn interest 2 years later in 2012! I just feel like that is not how it should be done, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. They also regularly give interest at about 12% which is good when I read about interest rates in the US being around 7%, but I feel like since this interest is basically announced after 2 years, that 12% isn't as good as it seems. Someone help me understand if I'm wrong. Thanks." }, { "docid": "498955", "title": "", "text": "You should really talk to a lawyer about criminal concerns. There may be some. Does USA credit score transfer to other countries? The USA doesn't do anything with credit scores. In the USA credit records are maintained by private companies who provide the information to your creditor. There's no legal limitation for the creditors to be within USA, only that you allow access. So bottom line - technically it is possible for foreign creditors to get that information. If you don't have local credit score, it is likely that they will. Will someone come after me? Depends on the loan managers. Civil suite is possible, since you cannot discharge student loans in bankruptcy. How likely is it? Probably not very likely. Could I be extradited? Only if a criminal complaint is filed and the country you're at has an extradition agreement with the US. Would I be arrested if I ever came back to visit a family member? I'm not sure on this. I believe it is possible for a lender to have your passport taken by a court, but I don't think you can be actually arrested unless there's a criminal charge. But as I said - I believe your passport may be taken away from you when you come to the US, to prevent you fleeing without paying the debt. Would someone go after my family to collect the debts? Can they do that? Unless they co-signed, or they have control over your assets - unlikely. Could the USA somehow garnish my pay in another country? Yes, if a court decides so. That would have to be a court in that country though. In addition: The US can freeze your assets abroad if you keep them in a FATCA-compliant institution (which is almost any bank, nowadays). Also, when you die, the US may (and probably will) demand a portion of your estate to pay the debt. Talk to a lawyer about additional issues and concerns." }, { "docid": "89461", "title": "", "text": "\"I mean, are we moving from \"\"everyone deserves enough wage to fully live on no matter how much value their job creates\"\" to \"\"everyone deserves full on nice place to live no matter what\"\"? My wife and I are living in 2 rooms of someone else's home because neither of us graduated college. That's an office we share and a bedroom. We are either sleeping or working. Often at different times because she works night shift. Our bathroom is the \"\"anybody who happens to be downstairs and anyone who visits the house bathroom\"\". She's currently studying for a job upgrade and I've started a business that's beginning to get traction, but that's recent. We made bad decisions that led to not great jobs. But we realized that the only people who could pick us up and help were ourselves. My refrigerator just died, and I no longer have a vehicle because some loser decided he wanted to pull out in front of me at the last possible second. My family helps, but they can't prop us up, and I DON'T WANT THEM TOO. If you're working a minimum wage job, educate yourself. Build something else. Free education is all over the internet and you can literally make yourself a job now with nothing but a computer (fuck, a smartphone) and your work ethic. Nobody who will hire you gives a shit about your skin color or gender or anything like that. They care about whether or not you can provide value. Let teenagers sling fries and pack boxes. Fucking grow up and learn how to code. Learn how to work on cars in your spare time. Education is now free and it's the ticket to a better life. Jesus fuck. Saying things like \"\"Stop eating avocado toast and you could afford a house\"\" is bullshit. But to say \"\"use free resources to help yourself instead of staying at McDonald's and spending your time on nonsense bullshit, and maybe you could soon make more than minimum wage\"\" sure isn't. I've worked minimum wage and driven an hour from my house for the privelege. If you aren't willing to improve yourself and your skillset, then fuck yes, live under the stairs like Harry Potter. There's no reason Gary Vaynerchuk goes from working at his dad's liquor store to millionaire, but someone else can't go from McDonald's to making a real \"\"living wage\"\". There's no reason JK Rowling went from nothing to giving away so much money that she dropped from billionaire to millionaire​, but someone else can't learn how to write as copy or social media for businesses. Live under the stairs. Make minimum wage. But don't bitch about it if you aren't fucking working to change your circumstances, because to be honest, nobody owes you or me shit.\"" }, { "docid": "180295", "title": "", "text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!" }, { "docid": "380714", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; As I currently understand, we owe much of our national debt to ourselves. Debtors owe creditors. Creditors are, by and large, the banks. Forget about we/ourselves. One thing we are taught in school is that banks earn money on the spread between what a creditor pays, minus what a saver earns in interest on his deposit. In reality, such private savings pretty much do not exist. When someone borrows from the bank, they mostly aren't borrowing another person's savings. The bank is creating *new* currency through the issuance of debt. &gt; The reason for this is that people are being charged interest that does not exist in the system. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"does not exist in the system\"\". The way it works is you borrow a dollar, and now you owe a dollar plus the interest on the dollar. Since each new loan creates more debt than currency, the monetary system can never shrink or it implodes. If you mean that the currency is unbacked by any objective measure of value, that is correct. &gt; Therefore, if we tried to pay the debt (like some conservative politicians are fighting for) it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, since most of the debt is owed to the 1% (banks). There is no possibility of repaying it. Both the Red Team and the Blue Team are in on this. If you're worried about the 99% you should be advocating commodity money, because that is the only way to stop theft by inflation. If you're worried about yourself, get informed as to how these plans have played out in history and how you might protect yourself.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "487791", "title": "", "text": "It's hard to answer without knowing all of the details (i.e. what was your salary for each of the options), but I think you probably made a good choice. 1099: Would have required you to pay self-employment tax, but also would have allowed you to deduct business expenses. W2 with benefits: Likely would have been beneficial if you needed healthcare (since group plans can be cheaper than individual plans, and healthcare payments aren't taxed), but if you don't use the healthcare, that would have been a waste. W2, no benefits: Assuming your salary here falls between the 1099 and the W2 with benefits, it seems like a good compromise for your situation." } ]

[ { "docid": "466213", "title": "", "text": "\"You file taxes as usual. W2 is a form given to you, you don't need to fill it. Similarly, 1099. Both report moneys paid to you by your employers. W2 is for actual employer (the one where you're on the payroll), 1099 is for contractors (where you invoice the entity you provide services to and get paid per contract). You need to look at form 1040 and its instructions as to how exactly to fill it. That would be the annual tax return. It has various schedules (A, B, C, D, E, F, H, etc) which you should familiarize yourself with, and various additional forms that you attach to it. If you're self employed, you're expected to make quarterly estimate payments, but if you're a salaried employee you can instruct your employer to withhold the amounts you expect to owe for taxes from your salary, instead. If you're using a tax preparation software (like TurboTax or TaxAct), it will \"\"interview\"\" you to get all the needed information and provide you with the forms filled accordingly. Alternatively you can pay someone to prepare the tax return for you.\"" }, { "docid": "214173", "title": "", "text": "\"Hello! First of all, I think it's great you're asking the community for help. Asking for help when you need it is a sign of strength and self-awareness of your own limitations (which we all have, even the smartest business people ask questions, in fact they ask the most questions). I'm wrapping up year 2 of doing what you're trying to do and am finally seeing real traction. I am a bit older than you and started out on my own 7 years after grad school, but I have learned a lot and don't mind sharing. Here's some things you might find useful. * Never work for free (working for \"\"equity\"\" or working for \"\"exposure\"\" is working for free). People who offer you this because you're just starting out are parasites looking to sell your talents but not pay for them. The only thing you can take away from attempts to do this is that your talents are in demand, which is good! * Never sell yourself short: would you rather do 10 websites for a $1000 each or do 1 website for $10000? You'll be doing a lot of projects in the middle, but one very important thing to bear in mind is that one $10000 website is a lot less work and may make you the same amount of money (or more) overall. * In the beginning, maybe you think you need to build a portfolio. But you'd be surprised how many prospects don't care what's in your portfolio and in fact never look at the portfolio, which leads me to the most important bit of advice: * Learn to sell yourself. YOU are your company's first and main product. Learn to sell yourself (as the smart kid, future Fortune 500 CEO who stays up all night getting things done, etc) * Always aim high in your proposals. You'd be surprised how many people don't negotiate at all. That being said, always put something in your proposal that is a good idea but it beyond what their asking for. If they ask you to come down in price, remove this feature and come down a little bit. * Develop an ability to read how interested a prospect is in your services before you spring the price on them. At your age, I was waiting tables. This helped me to be able to read a customer to determine which waiter they wanted me to be: the attentive one, the high class one, the friend, or the quiet servile. Consider taking on a side job to help you develop this skill. * As I said above, some prospects will sign on the line without negotiating. You might even take two proposals with you into a meeting with a prospect, one priced high and one low, and present the version that matches their interests. Go high if they need something \"\"right now\"\". * Remember you are your company's first product. This means also that your time is the company's first commodity. Be open to other things. I have a background in mathematics and am most capable as a software developer and a web developer. But I also help other companies sell and support physical products not at all related to technology. Because it's highly profitable, I do it. * When you're a one person business selling your time at the highest price is the name of the game. But growing your business will require the help of others. I found it helpful to first network with other like minded people and split project money according to skill level and time commitment on a per project basis. This will allow you to take on bigger projects. * But growing the company will eventually require you to hire (or contract) someone at a far lower pay rate than what you're bringing in. The laws of supply and demand require you to do this as a business person if you're to grow the business (so that the business has money beyond what you're being paid). This is where the extra money comes from: selling the time of others at a higher price than you're paying them. Be conscious of this. Everyone you work with is not going to be your friend. * Make your website awesome. It doesn't have to be a work of art, but let it reflect the seriousness with which you approach your customers' projects. Make sure there are no grammatical errors. Find a website of someone highly successful who's doing what you're doing and emulate it. You don't have to have a portfolio starting out. Your website is your first portfolio item, and if it's awesome, prospects will think you'll do the same for them. Good luck! I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thinks your early developed entrepreneurship is going to take you far.\"" }, { "docid": "165645", "title": "", "text": "Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk." }, { "docid": "362060", "title": "", "text": "I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on." }, { "docid": "555732", "title": "", "text": "\"My number one piece of advice is to see a tax professional who can guide you through the process, especially if you're new to the process. Second, keep detailed records. That being said, I found two articles, [1] and [2] that give some relevant details that you might find helpful. The articles state that: Many artists end up with a combination of income types: income from regular wages and income from self-employment. Income from wages involves a regular paycheck with all appropriate taxes, social security, and Medicare withheld. Income from self-employment may be in the form of cash, check, or goods, with no withholding of any kind. They provide a breakdown for expenses and deductions based on the type of income you receive. If you get a regular paycheck: If you've got a gig lasting more than a few weeks, chances are you will get paid regular wages with all taxes withheld. At the end of the year, your employer will issue you a form W-2. If this regular paycheck is for entertainment-related work (and not just for waiting tables to keep the rent paid), you will deduct related expenses on a Schedule A, under \"\"Unreimbursed Employee business expenses,\"\" or on Form 2106, which will give you a total to carry to the schedule A. The type of expenses that go here are: If you are considered an independent contractor (I presume this includes the value of goods, based on the first quoted paragraph above): Independent contractors get paid by cash or check with no withholding of any kind. This means that you are responsible for all of the Social Security and Medicare normally paid or withheld by your employer; this is called Self-Employment Tax. In order to take your deductions, you will need to complete a Schedule C, which breaks down expenses into even more detail. In addition to the items listed above, you will probably have items in the following categories: Ideally, you should receive a 1099 MISC from whatever employer(s) paid you as an independent contractor. Keep in mind that some states have a non-resident entertainers' tax, which is A state tax levied against performers whose legal residence is outside of the state where the performance is given. The tax requires that a certain percentage of any gross earnings from the performance be withheld for the state. Seriously, keep all of your receipts, pay stubs, W2's, 1099 forms, contracts written on the backs of napkins, etc. and go see a tax professional.\"" }, { "docid": "221247", "title": "", "text": "It sounded an interesting question, so I looked it up. The reason I asked about the tax years is because it matters. If the bonus was paid, and then returned in the same year - it should not appear on your W2 at all, and your taxes would be calculated accordingly. You might end up with overpayment of FICA taxes, but you can get that credited on your tax return. If, however, the repayment is not in the same year as the payment, it becomes more complicated. The code section that deals with it is 26 USC § 1341. What it says, in short, is this: you can deduct the repaid amount from your current taxable income, but only if its more than $3000. The tax benefit of such deduction cannot exceed the actual tax paid on this in the year when you got the bonus (i.e.: you need to calculate that year with the amount, and without the amount - the credit cannot exceed the difference). But it can also not exceed the amount you would be paying on that amount in the current year (i.e.: if current taxes are less than that year - you lost the difference). If the signing bonus is less than $3000 and it spans across tax years - you cannot deduct it. Bummer." }, { "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": "280027", "title": "", "text": "Sorry about the link. I guess it didn't upload with the post like I thought it did. I've since edited it and added it. I think it makes some really good points. Could it be that your client decided that they just couldn't afford you, and that was just the excuse they were giving? (I'm not saying they had good reason). Nothing turns me off quicker than someone offering me a discount, especially if I'm not already a customer! I just wish that worked on my wife...lol I admit that it isn't easy to constantly come up with good content on a regular basis that offers something worthwhile that people regularly become engaged in. In today's world people consume content very quickly and then are left wanting more. Keeping it fresh is no easy task, but the way most seem to go about it is just spinning wheels and wasting time." }, { "docid": "224530", "title": "", "text": "\"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient. 25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets. For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to \"\"retire\"\" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock. Regarding health benefits... I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC. Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no \"\"you have to be with the company for X length of time\"\" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues. And each summer they'd offer a cash-out program, where you could double up on time off, where if you took off a week, you could opt to deplete your accrued vacation time by two weeks and get double pay for it. A lot of people liked this option. The points for absenteeism thing seemed a bit silly -- and seemed to only have been implemented in one store and then only for a brief time. From what I gathered in the article, it was an experiment that failed miserably. The other corporation I have spent a significant amount of time working at is Whole Foods Market, in their corporate office. While both Apple and Whole Foods always are selected as two of the top companies to work for by Forbes in their annual report, as far as benefits went, Apple's were far superior in most aspects. With respect to company culture, I personally found Whole Foods to be better, but that was sort of a personal preference. Both were dream jobs, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for two outstanding companies that both treated me very well. Oh- and incidentally, Ron Johnson, who was VP of Retail at Apple from the inception of the stores until like a year ago, now is CEO of JC Penny, and, I suspect, is fully behind JCP's ad campaigns which include images of families with same-sex parents. JCP has stepped deliberately and full-on into what is, unfortunately, still a controversial topic and has taken a firm stand in support of all types of loving families. I have to wonder if part of this might have been inspired by the fact that Apple's new CEO, Tim Cook, is gay. Ron Johnson would have worked closely alongside Cook during his tenure. I met Ron once and found him to be a great guy, and I worked with the Retail operations folks from the time the stores launched. They were a great team that worked hard and were very sincere and dedicated. You could see his leadership reflecting in each member of the team.\"" }, { "docid": "224746", "title": "", "text": "&gt;when by definition, you are being paid less than your labour If that were true then why wouldnt the worker just work for themselves? They would make more or at least the same amount and not have to deal with their bosses bossing them around. The fact is that the worker is made more productive through the use of the entrpeneur's resources and business model structure. If there were no extra benefit to the worker in taking the job then they wouldnt take it, just like if the employer did not recieve an added benefit above and beyond what they were paying the worker, they wouldnt hire them. Extra value is created in the two voluntarily working together. No one is being generous or agreeing to the arrangement out of the goodness of their heart. They are both acting in their self interest and they are both benefitting." }, { "docid": "425527", "title": "", "text": "\"Related to this question: I came across a post at The Financial Planning Exchange* titled \"\"The Top 10 Ways To Tell If You're Working With A Really Good Financial Planner.\"\" Here are a few tips I particularly liked: (* site is no longer available) 4. Make sure the planner is going to work with you on a Fiduciary basis. This means that they are going to recommend only what is in your best interest. A planner who tries to sell you a product is generally a red flag that they aren't looking out for your best interests. [...] 8. Interview the prospective planner that you are about to hire. Understand how they think, what their speciality is, and most importantly how they are going to get paid for their services. Be very very careful with a planner who is going to provide you with a free financial plan as that person more often than not has a motivation to sell you something. [..] 10. Last but not least, go to a person who works hand in hand with financial planners like an accountant or estate planning attorney for a referral. Accountants and estate planning/tax attorneys know the difference between a good and bad planner. Chances are they are a client of the person they'll refer you to.\"" }, { "docid": "565157", "title": "", "text": "No. Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment. However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities. Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses. Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station. These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA. Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though. Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits." }, { "docid": "591385", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"" }, { "docid": "331396", "title": "", "text": "Well, actually in your brother's case it's quite a good idea. Not as a savings method, but as what it is - insurance. As long as he's alive and well he can pay his own debts, they're his problem and it's his responsibility. Once something, god forbid, happens to him - the debts become the problem of his survivors (you, if he doesn't have kids, for example). His life insurance should provide the means to pay off the inherited debts. So the point of life insurance as insurance is to make sure those who survive you have enough of what they need to continue living as they were with you. Some policies take into account injuries and work disability, so that not only when you die there are benefits, but also when you had an accident and can no longer work. Some policies are basically a combination of savings and insurance - that's the policies discussed in the investing threads. edit as clarified in the comments, debts cannot be inherited per se, they will be paid off from the estate before disbursement of such. What it means though is, if the deceased had accrued significant debt, all his assets may go to the creditors leaving survivors with nothing, which may also mean homeless. That was the kind of a problem I was talking about." }, { "docid": "233897", "title": "", "text": "&gt; Is it legal to do this? What if it's a shareholder, lets say, a 20% owner of a company who has their own real estate business as their primary focus, but get most of their income from a set hourly wage from the company they partly own, plus dividends? To elaborate on this, let's say that the person in question is never involved in the business in any way shape or form except that they own a % share.. They get paid $40 per hour as a W2 employee, plus dividends, yet they contribute to nothing. I guess it's more of an ethics question, but if that's illegal please let me know. :)" }, { "docid": "239714", "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. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect. However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock.\"" }, { "docid": "186538", "title": "", "text": "\"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"" }, { "docid": "377571", "title": "", "text": "(My wife works for an insurance broker in the US, so take that grain of salt with my answer) Disability insurance covers your income should you be unable to work. Some disability will be paid before social security (so you get both incomes) and some will be paid after (so your insurance will fill whatever gap SS leaves) Everybody in the US gets Social Security, which has a disability provision you can use. The additional disability insurance is a good idea for people with a family who will rely on your income for the future, or even for yourself should you work in a dangerous position. My family has it, and we consider it essential for our well being, but I consider insurance on many things a necessity not a luxury. (except pet insurance, I find that to be a luxury.)" }, { "docid": "477476", "title": "", "text": "Welcome to the wonderful but oft confusing world of self-employment. Your regular job will withhold income for you and give you a W2, which tells you and the government how much is withheld. At the end of the year uber will give you and the government a 1099-misc, which will tell you how much they paid you, but nothing will be withheld, which means you will owe the government some taxes. When it comes to taxes, you will file a 1040 (the big one, not a 1040EZ nor 1040A). In addition you will file a schedule C (self-employed income), where you will report the gross paid to you, deduct your expenses, and come up with your profit, which will be taxable. That profit goes into a line in the 1040. You need to file schedule SE. This says how much self-employment tax you will pay on your 1099 income, and it will be more than you expect. Self employment tax is SS/Medicare. There's a line for this on the 1040 as well. You can also deduct half of your self-employment tax on the 1040, there's a line for it. Now, you can pay quarterly taxes on your 1099 income by filing 1040-ES. That avoids a penalty (which usually isn't that large) for not withholding enough. As an alternative, you can have your regular W2 job withhold extra. As long as you don't owe a bunch at tax time, you won't be a fined. When you are self-employed your taxes aren't as simple. Sorry. You can either spend some time becoming an expert by studying the instructions for the 1040, pay for the expensive version of tax programs, or hire someone to do it for you. Self-employed taxes are painful, but take advantage of the upsides as well. You can start a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA, for example. Make sure you are careful to deduct every relevant business expense and keep good records in case you get audited." } ]

[ { "docid": "365456", "title": "", "text": "There are quite a few questions as to how you are recording your income and expenses. If you are running the bakery as a Sole Proprietor, with all the income and expense in a business account; then things are easy. You just have to pay tax on the profit [as per the standard tax bracket]. If you running it as individual, you are still only liable to pay tax on profit and not turnover, however you need to keep a proper book of accounts showing income and expense. Get a Accountant to do this for you there are some thing your can claim as expense, some you can't." } ]

[ { "docid": "330299", "title": "", "text": "I would say the most challenging fact for this assertion is that HFT firms operate with extremely limited capital bases. For a stock with say 10m shares ADV, even a very large and successful HFT strategy might use a position limit of no more than 5000 shares. That is to say if you sum up and net the buys and sells for a stock across the day the HFT firm will never exceed 10,000 shares (2x position limits assuming it completely flipped) on a stock that trades 10,000,000 shares on a given day. The high volumes are attained through high turnover, the strategy might trade up to 500,000 shares (or 5% of the volume) attaining a 50x turnover. But that brings me back to the original point. In the market microstructure literature market impact generally has been found to scale linearly or even sub-linearly for net volume executed. If I alternate between thousands of 1 lot buy and sell orders, it would be very difficult for me to move the market because the market impact of every one of my buy orders roughly cancels the market impact of my almost exactly equal number of sell orders. There might be a higher-order mechanism at work, but I'm genuinely curious what you think it might be. How could strategies that attain such small net positions have such out-sized impact on market direction?" }, { "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": "359579", "title": "", "text": "I am not going to argue the merits of investing in real estate (I am a fan I think it is a great idea when done right). I will assume you have done your due diligence and your numbers are correct, so let's go through your questions point by point. What would be the type of taxes I should expect? NONE. You are a real estate investor and the US government loves you. Everything is tax deductible and odds are your investment properties will actually manage to shelter some of your W2(day job) income and you will pay less taxes on that too. Obviously I am exaggerating slightly find a CPA (certified public accountant) that is familiar with real estate, but here are a few examples. I am not a tax professional but hopefully this gives you an idea of what sort of tax benifits you can expect. How is Insurance cost calculated? Best advice I have call a few insurance firms and ask them. You will need landlord insurance make sure you are covered if a tenant gets hurt or burns down your property. You can expect to pay 15%-20% more for landlord insurance than regular insurance (100$/month is not a bad number to just plug in when running numbers its probably high). Also your lease should require tenants to have renters insurance to help protect you. Have a liability conversation with a lawyer and think about LLCs. How is the house price increase going to act as another source of income? Appreciation can be another source of income but it is not really that useful in your scenario. It is not liquid you will not realize it until you sell the property and then you have to pay capital gains and depreciation recapture on it. There are methods to get access to the gains on the property without paying taxes. This is done by leveraging the property, you get the equity but it is not counted as capital gains since you have to pay it back a mortgage or home equity lines of credit (HELOC) are examples of this. I am not recommending these just making sure you are aware of your options. Please let me know if I am calculating anything wrong but my projection for one year is about $8.4k per house (assuming no maintenance is needed) I would say you estimated profit is on the high side. Not being involved in your market it will be a wild guess but I would expect you to realize cash-flow per house per year of closer to $7,000. Maybe even lower given your inexperience. Some Costs you need to remember to account for: Taxes, Insurance, Vacancy, Repairs, CapEx, Property Management, Utilities, Lawn Care, Snow Removal, HOA Fees. All-in-all expect 50% or your rental income to be spent on the property. If you do well you can be pleasantly surprised." }, { "docid": "164301", "title": "", "text": "Something I've not heard mentioned in any of the answers is that (at least for me) owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect. The US IRS has been hacked several times recently and there have been cases of fraudulent tax refunds being filed and tax refund checks being cashed by ID thieves. Well, if you owe a bit of tax then you're less of a target for fraudulent tax refunds being filed in your name. Even in the case that you were unlucky enough to have had your identity stolen, at least you don't have to deal with the IRS trying to sort a mess like that up. Thus, (IMO) it's better to owe a bit of tax, than to have a small refund, or any refund for that matter. Ideally, you want to get to zero dollars owed like you suggested, but that's often pretty hard to do. So, the next best thing is to owe a bit. One should try to calculate tax liability quartely or if income changes, adjust your withholding, so that you get closer to zero tax." }, { "docid": "555237", "title": "", "text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"" }, { "docid": "507596", "title": "", "text": "\"Going by the information from Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the Australian Government website, there seem to be a number of possibilities. Note: First I am neither a tax expert nor a lawyer; this is simply my interpretation of the rules on the page linked above. Second, this interpretation is based on the assumption that \"\"resells a service\"\" means you (at least technically) buy the service from another company and sell it on to the users of your app. Depending on the nature of the service, and possibly factors such as whether you are deemed to \"\"take possession\"\" during the transaction, it might be that different rules apply. Your Turnover is Under A$75,000 (Providing you're not reselling taxi services!) You won't need to register for GST, should not charge it, and your invoices should show that GST was not included in the price. However, if the turnover of the company whose services you are reselling is registered for GST, they will be charging you GST that you will not be able to claim back, so you would need to factor this into the price you charge your users (before any promotional discount). For example: Your Turnover is Over A$75,000 If your turnover is above the limit, you would need to charge GST on the final sale amount and pay this amount (one eleventh of the price your customer paid) to the Australian Government. You also have to send out properly-formatted tax invoices. However, it's probably safe to say the company you are buying the original service from will also be over the GST threshold, so you should be able to reclaim the GST that was charged to you by them. For example: Here, your overall profit/loss is helped by the fact that you can reclaim the GST you were charged, and can under some circumstances result in an overall rebate. These figures assume you add 10% to your selling price to cover the GST you have to pay the Government. However, this may make your offering uncompetitive, so you may have to absorb some/all of the GST yourself.\"" }, { "docid": "203820", "title": "", "text": "\"Small businesses are often governed by local regulations and state law. In a low liability small quantity arena, you should be able to get away with a DBA (doing business as) arrangement, such as DBA \"\"Jay's Gem's\"\". A small business license may come with a state Tax ID and satisfy your supplier, but a Federal EIN can be obtained from the IRS, and may be necessary to apply for the business license. It wouldn't hurt to talk to the local chamber of commerce or state small business agencies if you have questions about local requirements.\"" }, { "docid": "357427", "title": "", "text": "What do you mean doesn't allow private entities to attach to the fixtures? Do you mean fixtures like lamp posts etc? This would only be suitable for small cells anyway. Putting a small cell on a rooftop is silly. A roof site would be a full build site with radios, sector antennas, an equipment cabinet or two, and a power/battery cabinet. If you mean attach fixtures to buildings, I don't believe that. Create a business to lease the space. Bob's Rooftop, Inc., etc. Make sure they carry sufficient insurance and that it includes protection for your building against any contractor error (roof damage, accidentally drill something, damage to cosmetic materials, etc), against fire, and basically anything else. I've only seen cell equipment catch fire a couple of times, both of which were the result of lightning strikes. On the other hand, the bank of batteries they use for backup power is pretty big and has more than enough power to do some accidental arc welding. Are they limited to leasing to a single carrier? You need this all spelled out in writing. PM me the name of the vendor if you are allowed to. I don't need the name of the carrier. You don't need to give me too much identifying information, so there is no exposure for you. Are they offering the $350 or are you asking it? I feel like a minimum of $1000 is reasonable. Try to find out what they will be paid by the carrier. You might be able to negotiate something like 65% of the money the carrier pays. Do remember that the vendor does basically nothing other than make the space available. They don't build the site and they don't maintain it." }, { "docid": "1705", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, your tax bracket is 25%. However, that doesn't mean that your take home pay will be 75% of your salary. There is much more that goes into figuring out what your take home pay will be. First, you have payroll taxes. This is often listed on your pay stub as \"\"FICA.\"\" The Social Security portion of this tax is 6.2% on the first $118,500 of your pay and the Medicare portion is another 1.45% on the first $200,000. (Your employer also has to pay additional tax that does not appear on your stub.) So 7.65% of your salary gets removed off the top. In addition to the federal income taxes that get withheld, you may also have state income taxes that get withheld. The amount varies with each state. Also, the 25% tax bracket does not mean that your tax is 25% of your entire salary. You step through the tax brackets as your income goes up. So part of your salary is taxed at 10%, part at 15%, and the remainder is at 25%. The amount of federal income tax that is withheld from your paycheck is really a rough estimate of how much tax you actually owe. There are lots of things that can reduce your tax liability (personal exemptions, deductions, credits) or increase your tax (investment income, penalties). When you do your tax return, you calculate the actual tax that you owe, and you either get a refund if too much was taken out of your check, or you need to send more money in if too little was taken out.\"" }, { "docid": "123384", "title": "", "text": "\"It comes down to the resolution you want to have on your personal finances. A package like GNUCash allows you to easily answer questions like \"\"Exactly how much do I spend on interest per month/year/decade.\"\" Same with pretty much any other expense, liability or asset you have whether it be taxes, utilities, your home equity or your net worth. The other tools you mention are nice, and certainly convenient, but they tend to lump things together in broad strokes and omit many categories altogether (taxes). Ultimately by having such a fine grained accounting tool, you can target small or large things to better budget your money. Another thing a package like GNUCash provides is a single, private place to consolidate all of your finances. This is nice for things like net worth and asset accounts that you might not want to give a company access to. Finally, GNUcash in particular helps normal people think like accountants. Rather than lump everything into 'income' and 'expenses', once you start using GNUCash you'll start thinking in terms of equity, liabilities, net-worth and assets in addition to income and expenses. This gives me a much more accurate view of my finances and helps me better target areas for improvement. In short, it helps me to see the broader picture which helps me to keep my eye on the prize - which of course is to not have to worry about money at all.\"" }, { "docid": "153729", "title": "", "text": "\"One advantage of the chip cards is that the card information needed to make purchases can't be easily skimmed or \"\"stolen\"\". Another is that it is more difficult to create a fake physical card. These advantages still exist regardless of what form of verification is used (or even if no verification is used). The type of fraud you're describing, in which your card is physically lost or stolen, is a relatively small proportion of total fraud (14% according to this site). One reason this is not as big a problem is that often, if you lose your card or get robbed, you know the card is compromised and you can cancel it. (Even if it takes you a while to do this, at least you are on the alert.) The real danger comes when your card info is stolen without your knowledge, and this is harder to do with a chip card. It's also worth noting that there are more ways for a fraudster to get nabbed than being caught red-handed entering the wrong PIN at the point of sale. The credit card companies are still tracking card usage and watching for unusual purchases that might indicate fraud. Also, sometimes fraudsters do surprisingly dumb stuff, like use the card to buy something online and mail it to themselves. So it's not correct to say that there is \"\"zero risk of getting caught\"\". With both stripe and chip cards, you can catch the person by tracking them via their usage of the card. The biggest security risk with the new cards is that many vendors don't actually require use of the chip at all -- they still let you swipe. However, with changes to credit card liability policies, this is a risk for the vendors, not for you.\"" }, { "docid": "200603", "title": "", "text": "It only matters for purposes of the dependent, so if you are clearly at 50%, then you don't need to calculate this cost. If it is close to not being 50%, then you will have to allocate between your sister and mother. To calculate support costs, you can of course include the costs incurred for transportation, per Pub 17 p 34. If you and your sister have an arrangement where she uses the car and in exchange she shoulders extra costs for your mother, then that's legitimately your expense for your mother (as long as this is a true agreement, then it was money she owed you but paid directly to the vendors and creditors that you would have paid). Note that there is a simpler avenue. If your sister agrees that you will claim your mother as dependent, and nobody else provides any substantial support (10%+ of costs), then she can just agree that it's you who will claim her. If you like, such an agreement may be attached to your taxes, possibly using Form 2120. As a general rule, though, you do not need to use 2120 or any other agreement, nor submit any support calculations. If your sister verbally agrees that she hasn't and won't claim your mother, then it's unlikely to cause any problems. Her signed agreement not to claim your mother is merely the most conservative possible documentation strategy, but isn't really necessary. See Pub 17, p 35 on Multiple Support Agreements for more info." }, { "docid": "473963", "title": "", "text": "\"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term \"\"total capital\"\" referring to \"\"total capital stock\"\" or \"\"total capital assets,\"\" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word \"\"payable\"\" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as \"\"Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net\"\" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called \"\"Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt\"\" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K.\"" }, { "docid": "498503", "title": "", "text": "\"Will this difference be given back in my next tax return If you compute your taxes correctly, yes you will get that money back when your tax return is processed. \"\"is it possible to return the check and modify how it's calculated if I talk to payroll?\"\" That is entirely up to your company but, probably not. It's a lot of effort for a comparatively small amount of money. \"\"Any ideas?\"\" Yeah, you are doing your math wrong. A possible but more unlikely answer is your company's software screwed up.\"" }, { "docid": "113776", "title": "", "text": "There are two reasons for incorporating a business in Canada - limiting liability and providing some freedom in structuring your taxes. Since you are asking about taxes, I will restrict myself to that topic. First of all, remember that if you don't make much money, there isn't much tax to save by clever structuring of your affairs. And if you do incorporate, you will pay taxes as a corporation, and pay taxes again on your salary paid from that corporation. It can still be advantageous, because the small business tax rate is less that the higher tax brackets of personal taxes, and you don't have to pay out all of the profit as salary. If you don't incorporate, you still must pay taxes on your net income from the business. (See brian's answer.) Definitely keep track of your income and expenses, even if you don't plan on making money, in case you get audited. If the CRA wants to call your hobby a business, you will need to show that you haven't made any profit. I am just giving you a few bits of advice because this subject is complicated. Too complicated for an answer on this site. If you are still interested, go to your local library and get some books on the subject." }, { "docid": "469599", "title": "", "text": "The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return." }, { "docid": "591385", "title": "", "text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"" }, { "docid": "229744", "title": "", "text": "Compliance issues vary from country to country and, in the US, state to state as well. There'll be a number of levels, though: Bear in mind that it is not that these taxes and responsibilities don't apply to sole traders or unregistered businesses, it's just that being registered signals your existence and introduces the bureaucracy to you all at once. Update: Your accountant should manage your company and consumer tax calculations and submissions on your behalf (and a good one will complete all the paperwork on time plus let you know well in advance what your liability is, as well as offer advice on reducing and restructuring these liabilities). You're probably on your own for local taxes unless your accountant deals with these and is local to even know what they are." }, { "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": "82344", "title": "", "text": "Generally, report your $150,000. If/when the the tax collectors notice the anomaly, they'll attempt to contact you to remedy it. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US, it's pretty orderly. The IRS requests additional information or proof and only open it up into a full blown audit if the suspect wrongdoing. In your case, you could show a business agreement detailing the revenue split proving you correctly reported. This is only for your consideration. I strongly recommending finding and keeping a professional tax advisor." } ]

[ { "docid": "53496", "title": "", "text": "First, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service's I Don't Have My Refund page. It discusses different things that can go wrong with receiving your refund and what to do about it. From your post, it sounds like you've tried all of the normal things to do, and you've tried calling in to the IRS. What you might not know is that there are local IRS offices that you can visit and talk to a real person face-to-face. Hopefully, you'll find someone helpful there who can either explain to you what is going on or put you in touch with someone who can help. To find your local IRS office, go to the Contact Your Local IRS Office page and click on the Office Locator button. Office visits are generally by appointment only, so you'll need to call the number for the office you want to visit and make an appointment. Alternatively, if you can't get anywhere with the IRS, you could contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that exists to help people with disputes with the IRS, and they have an office in every state. You could try contacting them and seeing if they can help you with your issue. To answer your question about this year's tax return: At least for the federal return, your refund from last year does not really affect this year's tax return. You should be able to file this year's return no matter what happens with last year's refund. That having been said, you should get the refund matter straightened out as soon as you can. Good luck." }, { "docid": "431053", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Lol. Americas are two continents. How many times do I have to educate you? No, you said America is continents. You are just being weirdly semantic and also failing to distinguish between North and South America. They are not both collectively called America. Nobody groups 2 continents together like that. It's like trying to group Europe and Africa together. There is nobody who says this. You cannot \"\"educate\"\" me on this because literally zero people aside from you think this way. &gt;Beside that you still have not presented any data. All your points have been invalidated and best you can do is change topics over and over. What data would you like? America being increasingly protectionist and the stock market being at an all time high? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/26/us-stocks-boeing-earnings-fed.html I already used your own data against you so in a way that is me using data and you've presented none. &gt;Still could not address my points about Argentina, Canada, US and etc. What point? I said Canada was protectionist and Canada is in the top to protectionist countries in the list *you provided.* We have a heavy investment in our own companies, a lot of my tax dollars go to that in fact. Canada is one of the most protectionist countries on the planet. Against my wishes, by the way, but it is the way it is. &gt;Btw love your fake data and facts. I guess that's how you get cucked so hard to begin with Cucked? By what? My own facts? What? You sound retarded right now. &gt;LOL. Chart says tarrif of 10 big countries. Not 10 highest Tarrif. LOLOLOL. Okay so provide a graph that shows the 10 highest tariffs. You know what this weird edit of yours tells me? **YOU DID NOT EVEN LOOK AT YOUR OWN LINK WHEN YOU SENT IT.** You are just reading it now. So which one is it? Either the graph proves me right or it proves nothing at all. Either way, you fucked up. This is really, really funny. &gt;Best to stay in your safe space and keep getting cucked. Ugh, you don't see how embarrassing you sound, do you? Why would someone be cucked in a safe space? Are you saying *this* is a safe space? This sub is very clearly anti-Trump. You don't know what these words or phrases mean. &gt;I wasn't being homophobic. I called you for what you are. That's your choice. No shame. Keep doing what you do and be Putins holster Why do you think about cocksucking so much?\"" }, { "docid": "12232", "title": "", "text": "Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years. If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) * D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly." }, { "docid": "203729", "title": "", "text": "\"A Ponzi scheme, simply defined, is where the schemer uses funds invested by one person to pay off (or provide a return) for an earlier investor. Such schemes require a continual supply of new investors, and when they run it, the schemes collapse. Bernie Madoff is the best modern-day example of how a Ponzi scheme works, and he ran his for decades before it finally caved in thanks to the 2008 economic crash. People who had been content to leave their \"\"returns\"\" with Bernie started getting margin calls as the markets imploded, so they asked Bernie for redemptions he didn't have the funds for. That's what caused him to come clean, because there was no way to hide it any longer. Buying shares in a company with no revenues and then selling them to someone else at a higher price is not a Ponzi scheme. That falls under the \"\"greater fool\"\" theory of economics -- there's always a bigger fool who can be parted from his money. As was pointed out, Enron is a great example of what you're talking about -- they published totally fabricated financial statements that people then used as the basis to invest, only to learn later that it was all a lie.\"" }, { "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": "138994", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Thank you for the wealth of information! Sure, I hope my opinions are food for thought. &gt; 1) Does that basically translate to \"\"less tax on poor/wealthy...to promote entrepreneurship? No, your typical entrepreneur is a smart, disgruntled employee who thinks they have a better way to do a job. If you want more entrepreneurs, you should do things to help them succeed in a new company and minimize the risk. Some ways to do this: * Create a government agency that offers programs that help new companies. Guidance and funding are obvious candidates. Advertising for small local business would help too. One of the most important would be getting complementing talent together because a start-up needs the talents of at least four different people to have a good chance of succeeding. * Establish guaranteed health care. A 40-something with a wife and kids may have a great idea but can't risk to leave his family with no health insurance for the two years it would take to get his idea off the ground. * Better enforce anti-trust law. I believe small companies are stifled by big companies because the latter control too much of the market. If you want competitive markets you need to either break-up or handcuff and monitor the big players. * Create a better safety net. It is a lot easier to go on your own if you know at least you won't starve. &gt; 2) Rich using money to grow their own wealth. But wouldn't that mean as a byproduct, jobs will be made? In theory, yes, but I believe in practice the opposite happens. Big companies can make significantly more money hoarding their market share rather than branching into new markets. Here's a true story of my last company with names changed: Company A makes widgets. Company B makes bookkeeping software for tracking widgets and is very successful, controlling a majority of the market. Company A buys Company B at an inflated price. The government allows the sale on the condition that Company A does not use Company B's information on the widget market to gain an unfair advantage. Company A agrees and the buyout takes place. Company A then approaches all of Company B's customers and says, \"\"Let us look at the data on your bookkeeping software and we will give you a 5% discount.\"\" Most customers agree so Company A now has all the data controlled by Company B but this is not illegal because they got it from Company B's customers, not company B. Company A proceeds to undercut the market because it now knows exactly how much their competitors widgets sell for. Company A now controls a majority of the widget market and their market share continues to grow rapidly. By the way [here is that Bloomberg article I described earlier about repatriation being about buyouts](https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-05-08/theory-of-tax-repatriation-is-better-than-the-reality). &gt;&gt; Take home money is used for investment. It isn't. &gt; 3) I don't think I understand this one at all. Will you rephrase it for me? The argument is that we need to tax corporations less so they can invest more. Here's the problem -- investments are not taxed. A corporation's tax is a percentage of their gross income minus their expenses. Investment is an expense. Therefore the more they invest, the lower their tax bill. If you want companies to invest more, raise their tax rate. &gt; 4) I did hear from my professor and the educational videos he had shown us that the capital tax is one of the highest among the other OECD nations. I need to walk back what I said earlier. The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest. Does that mean US corporations pay the most tax? Well, [it's complicated](http://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the-u-s-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world). &gt; ...why can't we just close loop-holes instead of choosing to slash capital tax? Note that those go in opposite directions. Closing loopholes would make companies pay more. Slashing capital tax would have them pay less. Perhaps doing both would be revenue neutral. I would be in support of that because I suspect loopholes benefit big companies a lot more than small ones because they have the resources to find and exploit those loopholes. That said, people in power have been talking for 20 years about \"\"closing the loopholes\"\". They never do. [CGP Gray has an excellent video explaining why these loopholes are not going anywhere anytime soon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs). &gt; 5) I think it's in each company's best interest to further their own agenda, and that agenda usually means bad for the majority. Yes, that's a much better way of saying what I meant. &gt; Thank you in advance for your time. Sure, thanks for thinking, asking questions, and making up your own mind.\"" }, { "docid": "303078", "title": "", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"" }, { "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": "363178", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; A corporation should be taxed based on where it does business and not where the corporate headquarters are located. But... but.. that's the whole point of the inversions. The US government tries to claim taxes on income from revenue generated overseas. So right now if BK repatariates it's overseas earnings, the US government will double dip beyond it's fair share and tax already taxed revenue just because it was taxed by non-US governments. All BK is doing is moving their headquarters to to a more business friendly economy that doesn't do similar double dipping. That way when they repatriate overseas money they are not being forced to pay taxes unjustly like they would be in the US. They will still pay taxes in the US for earnings in the US, they just won't pay US taxes on earnings foreign earnings. I don't think you Americans get just how fucked up and hostile your tax structure is. It has nothing to do with \"\"fair share\"\".\"" }, { "docid": "222942", "title": "", "text": "That is but ONE liability out of a dozen possibly affected. Which liabilities going up for some businesses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the cost analysis every company must do when setting up it's future plans and forecasts. If government uses a carrot or a stick to incentivize or deincentize certain behavior, guess what companies do? So if there is a liability above say 5,000 people and they've got 6,500 currently and if they shrank it to 4,999 to avoid paying xyz increase in this or that. Guess what they'll do? You can say, oh they're not paying their fair share, or think about the 99% but the bottomline is that some companies will go into survival mode if they get anymore squeezed. If this was a good business envionment, fine, but it's not. (and if it was fine they wouldn't need to pull increased taxes to hit revenue). Here's a great example of how increased burdens can lead to withdrawl of investment: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-11/hollande-robbed-of-growth-driver-as-companies-curb-investments.html There is also a direct correlation where taxes go up beyond a certain point and revenues go DOWN: http://i.imgur.com/BPUAi.jpg Fairness is all well and good, but more taxes and liabilities do not automatically mean more revenue. It is a disincentive to produce more when there are more burdens on you. You go into survival mode, you go into hibernation mode." }, { "docid": "308332", "title": "", "text": "I'm all-in on hard silver, a small portion is stored at my house for emergency expenditures and the vast majority is in a high-security vault in Canada. That was actually the cheapest place I could find for long-term storage and insurance, which happened to be off-shore. It could turn out to be beneficial to be off-shore though. In the 1930s gold became illegal to privately own its very possible they could do the same this time, although they didn't in 1979. Oil is too high in volume to reasonably store. Gold isn't as undervalued as silver, which I could spend a full day talking about. But to sum it up in a few points: there is less silver than there is gold, gold has a premium for jewelry which will likely go down in a crash even though you will still see gains, silver is the second most used commodity besides oil, less people are in the know about it, silver prices were actually higher than gold a few times in the past century, simply measuring the dow in silver will show it's further below the historical average compared to gold. I'll stop there, but I could go on though on silver if people want. Real-estate is still very expensive from the 2008 recession, traditionally mortgages are $1.05 per dollar you would spend on renting the same property. Currently real-estate is at like $1.25+ I believe, It peaked at about $1.95. I rent, to save money, which you can spend on other assets. If one's willing to move to another state for lower taxes, they definitely should. Employment is going to be harder to come by, and they should get as much out of it as possible as they can. If they don't save enough, they could end up just using their entire savings during the whole thing if they can't find a job, in which case at the end you'd never know they knew it was going to happen. Overall I don't think this crash is going to be like the great depression. I don't feel compelled to store food and buy a generator or anything. I believe the living will be *easier* than it were to live in the 90s for those who are invested in assets. Everything is going to be on sale, meanwhile their wealth will be increasing. Depending on how much they own it could be increasing faster than they need to spend it. Sounds like the life to me. But with that said those without real assets, especially the lower class, will be unemployed and living on food stamps. Perhaps even the food stamps making more people leave the dollar and the economy. This actually might not be a prediction and is what happening already. But I don't believe anybody, in america at least, will be starving. In the 30s we had not mastered industry farming yet and we had the *dustbowl* to make things worse. Crime though, I'd own a gun. The protesters are here already, and I think we are just passing the half-way point right now, they will get angrier. I don't know enough about taxes to know the best country or place to store to combat taxes. Maybe someone else can chime in. I'm in canada to avoid high insurance and storage fees. And for careful selection of primary residence, In the long haul I'd rent a small apartment, as small and cheap as possible. In a safe neighborhood, but not so much secluded that a single grocery store or gas station going out of business could ruin it." }, { "docid": "355236", "title": "", "text": "\"Arbitrage is basically taking advantage of a difference in price. Generally extending to \"\"in different places for the same thing\"\". A monetary version would be interlisted stocks, that is stocks in companies that are on both the NYSE/Nasdaq and Toronto stock exchanges. If somebody comes along and buys a large number of shares in Toronto, that will tend to make the price go up - standard supply and demand. But if someone else can buy shares instead in NY, and then sell them in Toronto where the first person is buying up shares, where the price is higher, they the the arbitrageur (second person) can make pretty easy money. By its very nature, this tends to bring the prices back in line, as NY will then go up and Toronto will then go down (ignoring FX rates and the like for ease of explanation). The same can work for physical goods, although it does tend to get more complex with taxes, duties, and the like.\"" }, { "docid": "517641", "title": "", "text": "It says Amazon has no profits (or very low profits) but the value of the company is very high and growing because of the high revenue. All of the returns to investors are in the form of increased share price which isn't realized or taxed until the shares are sold. This isn't a loophole. Anybody can run a business where they spend most of their revenue on operating costs and run on very slim margins with the goal of growing the revenue." }, { "docid": "385074", "title": "", "text": "\"It's definitely annoying, but it's not necessarily false advertising. There is no rule or law that says they have to fix a pricing error at all, let alone within a certain period of time. Unfortunately they have no obligation to do business with you unless they take (and keep) your money. If they canceled the order and returned your money you have no binding agreement with them. On top of that, in the US... 'misleading advertising' usually refers to \"\"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities\"\" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)). The main criteria that they evaluate before taking legal action is whether or not someone has suffered harm or loss due to the reliance on the bad information. But you're in Europe. The EU ideas behind misleading advertising tend to focus a lot more on comparing one product to someone else's and making subjective claims or false promises. Pricing does come up, but still, you need to have an ability to prove that you suffered harm or a loss from the business' actions. Even if you were able to prove that, to force the business to change its price catalog, you would need to go through legal proceedings, demonstrate the harm that you've sustained, and then have a judge decide in your favor and order the supplier to comply. My guess is that it's just not worth it for you, but you haven't specified if this is just an annoying shoe-shopping experience or if you are regularly experiencing bait-and-switch tactics from a supplier that is a crucial part of a business operation. If it's the former, just like a physical shop reserves the right to kick you out if you're not behaving, (but usually doesn't because they'd like to keep you as a customer), an online shop can update its prices whenever they like. They can change their prices too, and cancel orders. If it's the latter, then start putting together some documentation on how many times this has happened and how it has damaged your business. But before you get on the warpath I would recommend you look for another place to buy whatever you have in mind, or else try a pound of sugar in your approach to this supplier... My own business experience has shown that can go a lot way in figuring out a mutually beneficial resolution. If you want to see a bit more... Here is the EU Justice Commission's website on false advertising, Here is a PDF leaflet from the UK Office of Fair Trading that spells out what is explicitly not allowed from a business by way of advertising & business practices.\"" }, { "docid": "167322", "title": "", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"" }, { "docid": "89461", "title": "", "text": "\"I mean, are we moving from \"\"everyone deserves enough wage to fully live on no matter how much value their job creates\"\" to \"\"everyone deserves full on nice place to live no matter what\"\"? My wife and I are living in 2 rooms of someone else's home because neither of us graduated college. That's an office we share and a bedroom. We are either sleeping or working. Often at different times because she works night shift. Our bathroom is the \"\"anybody who happens to be downstairs and anyone who visits the house bathroom\"\". She's currently studying for a job upgrade and I've started a business that's beginning to get traction, but that's recent. We made bad decisions that led to not great jobs. But we realized that the only people who could pick us up and help were ourselves. My refrigerator just died, and I no longer have a vehicle because some loser decided he wanted to pull out in front of me at the last possible second. My family helps, but they can't prop us up, and I DON'T WANT THEM TOO. If you're working a minimum wage job, educate yourself. Build something else. Free education is all over the internet and you can literally make yourself a job now with nothing but a computer (fuck, a smartphone) and your work ethic. Nobody who will hire you gives a shit about your skin color or gender or anything like that. They care about whether or not you can provide value. Let teenagers sling fries and pack boxes. Fucking grow up and learn how to code. Learn how to work on cars in your spare time. Education is now free and it's the ticket to a better life. Jesus fuck. Saying things like \"\"Stop eating avocado toast and you could afford a house\"\" is bullshit. But to say \"\"use free resources to help yourself instead of staying at McDonald's and spending your time on nonsense bullshit, and maybe you could soon make more than minimum wage\"\" sure isn't. I've worked minimum wage and driven an hour from my house for the privelege. If you aren't willing to improve yourself and your skillset, then fuck yes, live under the stairs like Harry Potter. There's no reason Gary Vaynerchuk goes from working at his dad's liquor store to millionaire, but someone else can't go from McDonald's to making a real \"\"living wage\"\". There's no reason JK Rowling went from nothing to giving away so much money that she dropped from billionaire to millionaire​, but someone else can't learn how to write as copy or social media for businesses. Live under the stairs. Make minimum wage. But don't bitch about it if you aren't fucking working to change your circumstances, because to be honest, nobody owes you or me shit.\"" }, { "docid": "527776", "title": "", "text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy." }, { "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": "588247", "title": "", "text": "You make the investment in Jan 2016. Assuming the SEIS certificate is issued before 5th April 2016, then you will enter the SEIS investment on your 2015-2016 tax return and claim the relief in that year. If the certificate is not issued in time then you will enter it in the 2016-2017 tax return and get the relief then. Note: I am assuming that the startup is already registered with the SEIS scheme by someone else - because if you are asking about how to go about that, I don't think that is an issue of personal finance." } ]

[ { "docid": "505678", "title": "", "text": "\"HypoVereinsbank (member of UniCredit group), a few savings banks (\"\"Sparkasse\"\") and VR Banks offer cash (bill) deposit machines. However, it can take a few business days until the deposit is credited to your checking account, which has to be with the same bank. Google for \"\"Bargeldeinzahlungsautomat\"\" (=cash deposit machine). As Duffbeer stated correctly, HSBC Trinkaus which is the German arm of the HSBC group does not operate any ATMs in Germany. In addition they do not share the same bank accounts. So I would recommend going with the classic banks mentioned above.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "213331", "title": "", "text": "\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"" }, { "docid": "393823", "title": "", "text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away." }, { "docid": "372308", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Look most of the time you can manage it sure. It is managed all the time. Even in the hypothetical crisis, it is still being managed. &gt;But without the lender of last resort(central bank) bank runs would happen and failures would be common, like in 19th century. One of the principal reasons for a lender of last resort. However, the system functions perfectly well without a lender of last resort unless there is also a hardening of the interbank market. &gt;The only way to stabilise fractional reserve banking It is not the only way. It is the best way in many respects. We could also change the terms and conditions of deposits such that all deposits require notice or have fixed term etc etc. This is without even considering what can be achieved with derivative instruments. &gt;can abuse its power It can also not abuse its power. See the Bundesbank of West Germany, or the central banks of Australia or New Zealand. Even the Federal Reserve Banks are actually not terrible in the global scale of central banks. &gt;excess credit expansion causing economic bubbles Economic bubbles occur independently of the presence of a central bank. See the 'Tulip Madess'." }, { "docid": "556233", "title": "", "text": "You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters)." }, { "docid": "403288", "title": "", "text": "\"Careful, this could be a scam. But if not.... There is no feasible way to turn that into cash without a very good reason that will require your banker to know you, as a depositor, reasonably well. And it sounds like you aren't banked at all. If this is your money, please pay attention - Class in America is defined by financial knowledge. If you are unbanked and lower class, $2M is actually dangerous - read a book called \"\"Money for Nothing\"\" about what happens to lottery winners. Honestly the tendency is for lower-class people to be possessed to keep making lower-class financial decisions, which directly lead them to be broke and bankrupt in months regardless of the size of the windfall. So making decisions differently is literally rehab... No exaggeration. To change your thinking, you'll want to read Suze Orman, John Bogle and Napoleon Hill. For an American who thinks about money the way the upper-middle-class does, $2M in the bank means the end of the 9-5 grind. He will still need to work, but will be able to be much more selective about choosing jobs which are fulfilling. It brings him the utopia we were promised. If you are currently unbanked, you will simply need to get banked to handle a check of this size. Handling this much cash is literally impossible due to the RICO laws designed to stop drug dealing and money laundering. Even if you split it into many small amounts, that itself is structuring which is a felony all its own. So let's get banked. A $2M check is a terrible entré into the banking world because it makes you smell like a criminal or scammer at first introduction. I could deposit one no problem because I have 10 years of history with my bank. But you, you'll need to convince the bank you're the real deal, and give them reason to trust you. Be prepared to that \"\"trust\"\" to include depositing some money... at the least, the bank will want to know you're good for the bad-check fees they suspect will follow. Go to a local bank or savings-and-loan that you trust, the smaller the better, and sit down with a banker. Describe your situation honestly and have him open an account and deposit the check. If your burned your ability to open checking accounts with a ChexSystems mark, you'll need to be more selective about banks and be honest about that to the banker. And wait a month for that check to clear positively, believe me your banker will be watching that. At that point, if you want great bunches of the money out quickly, it'll need to be in the form of a cheque or bank check. Cash ain't gonna happen, nor should it. The reason is, again, the RICO laws. Of course, if you are a criminal or scam victim, none of the above applies, sorry.\"" }, { "docid": "450600", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not need to write anything on the second line. There are a variety of helpful things that you can add, e.g.: For Deposit Only. This tells the bank to deposit the check into your account and ignore other signatures. Your account number. Especially useful when added to \"\"For Deposit Only\"\". A countersignature. This tells the bank to pay the check to someone other than you. Countersigned checks used to be much more common than they are now. Someone who didn't have a bank account might ask someone who did to cash a check for them. See also: Four ways to endorse a check which gives the correct format for endorsing a check in these ways.\"" }, { "docid": "52441", "title": "", "text": "In banks and institutions where you could look at the money supply of M1 which is the physical currency in circulation compared to M2 which would be all the deposits that tend to be valued much more. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/ would be the link where as of Nov. 2014 the figures are M1 - 2,849.8 M2 - 11,588.7 Footnotes from that: M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately. M2 consists of M1 plus (1) savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000), less individual retirement account (IRA) and Keogh balances at depository institutions; and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds, less IRA and Keogh balances at money market mutual funds. Seasonally adjusted M2 is constructed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail money funds, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1. Where M1 sounds like the physical money outside the banks and M2 is the money inside the banks. Did you mean something more specific here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product would be a link about GDP in terms of economic output that has more than a few pieces to it that I'm sure whole courses in college are devoted to understanding this measurement." }, { "docid": "530446", "title": "", "text": "There are two basic issues here. First, there is the difference between accounting terms and their dictionary definitions. Second, once you dig into it there are dichotomies similar to put vs call options, long sales vs short sales, bond yield vs interest rate. (That is, while they are relatively simple ideas and opposite sides of the same coin, it will probably take some effort to get comfortable with them.) The salient points from the Wikipedia article on debits and credits: In double-entry bookkeeping debit is used for increases in asset and expense transactions and credit is used for increases in a liability, income (gain) or equity transaction. For bank transactions, money deposited in a checking account is treated as a credit transaction (increase) and money paid out is treated as a debit transaction, because checking account balances are bank liabilities. If cash is deposited, the cash becomes a bank asset and is treated as a debit transaction (increase) to a bank asset account. Thus a cash deposit becomes two equal increases: a debit to cash on hand and a credit to a customer's checking account. Your bank account is an asset to you, but a liability to your bank. That makes for a third issue, namely perspective." }, { "docid": "170494", "title": "", "text": "\"We *are* talking at cross-purposes, but not for the reason you think. The debt might or might not be legally or practically recoverable (the apple-farmer and everything he owns might have been destroyed in the fire), but the value created and destroyed was real, and so was the money. You're focusing on the debt owed to the shoemaker, which is fine, but your mistake is thinking that the debt is in some way meaningfully different from money, which it's not. Most people who try to explain this difference would go off on a spiel about how the overwhelming majority of money on deposit in banks and otherwise in circulation has never been printed, or something, which is okay, but it's not a very convincing argument because you'll come back with something like, \"\"But I can still withdraw all my money, I can still cash all my checks, etc...\"\" So instead, I'm going to try and break this down, bear with me... The apple-grower got a deer (worth 12 loddars, let's set the \"\"interest\"\" part aside for the moment). I got a pair shoes (also worth loddars). Forget about the shoe-maker and the debt for a moment, and focus on me. I sold a deer, and I used the proceeds to buy a pair of shoes. - Did I defraud anyone? No, I engaged in a fair transaction with willing partners on both sides. - Did I get paid for the deer? Obviously I did, because I used the payment to buy shoes. - What did I get paid with, if not money? I can hear you saying \"\"yeah, but the shoe guy...\"\" Forget about the shoe guy. When buy something on Amazon marketplace and charge it on a credit card and then get paid via direct-deposit and then have the money taken from your account to pay off the credit-card company electronically, is all of that real money? Of course it is. Now, what happens if you die before paying the the credit-card bill? Does that mean that the money Amazon paid to the seller doesn't exist? Does that mean that money paid by the CC company to Amazon doesn't exist? How about the money in your bank account, does that exist? What if your employer once defrauded someone, how about then? None of that money has ever been *printed*, nobody got permission from Ben Bernanke to authorize these transactions, but the money that changed hands was absolutely real, even though it was nothing more than a *series of promises.* Before you argue with me, think this through: all these account-transfers ultimately boil down to *promises* by the end bank to produce cash when and if the account-holder walks up to a teller and demands it. The bank doesn't have nearly enough cash to pay every account-holder, but they *do* have enough (hopefully) to keep their promises, since they know they won't all be called in at once. Nobody ever actually delivered a package of paper currency to cover these transactions. Everyone is just trading promises, and passing those promises along to others. It sounds crazy to say it that way, but it is *absolutely* true. Tally up your net worth (or if that's too ugly, imagine tallying up someone's net worth who has a net worth). Chances are that you have never in your life seen that amount of paper cash, certainly not in your physical possession. So who has it? It's not like your local bank branch has a box marked \"\"C_B_M\"\" with $400,000 in bills and coins sitting there. What you have is a series of promises. When your employer gets by credit-card, the customer promises to pay the credit-card company, who promises to pay your employer's bank. Your employer then pays you with a direct-deposit whereby his bank promises to pay your bank. You then swipe an ATM card and your bank promises to pay the grocery-store's bank, who in turn sends a check to their supplier which is a promise that the grocery-store's bank will pay the supplier's bank, who in turn does the same with the farmer, who does the same with his mortgage-company, who does the same to their investors, who do the same to whoever they spend money with. Occasionally one of them takes a cash withdrawal to tip the stripper or stick in a birthday-card or buy hot-dogs at the ballpark or something, but overwhelmingly, we are all just spending and re-spending *promises*, and the remarkable thing is that, overwhelmingly, *we keep them*, without anyone involved ever hiring a truck to deliver a bindle of cash to the \"\"first person\"\" because there *is* no \"\"first person.\"\" All of that stuff is *absolutely real money*. I used the example of a wildfire, but maybe it will be more useful to think of something that just changes in value for no obvious reason. Think of some article of clothing that has gone out of style-- everyone was buying that stuff up until the day they stopped. Somewhere, someone was stuck with the last warehouse full of hot-pink parachute pants or whatever. A month before, when they were ordered from China or wherever, they were worth $50 each. Now you can't give them away. That value is gone, it's just vanished. The money that bought the pants was real, the pants are real, but they are no longer worth anything. The person holding that warehouse full of pants now has to *pay* to either store of dispose of them. They might start bouncing checks and breaking promises. There was no fraud, but there also might not be any way to recover the money owed. $10mm worth of parachute pants is now negative $1mm worth of trash that has to be disposed of and mortgage obligations on the warehouse. I hope some of that makes sense. It is really hard to explain this stuff via analogy and hypothetical and the kinds of terms that lawyers think in, if you will forgive me for saying so.\"" }, { "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": "421752", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, in any financial system that features fractional reserve banking, the monetary supply expands during times of prosperity. Stable, low inflation of 2-4% keeps capital available while keeping the value of money stable. It also discourages hoarding of wealth. Banks aren't vaults. They take deposits and make an explicit promise to repay the depositor on demand. Since most depositors don't need to withdraw money regularly, the lend out the money you deposited and maintain a reserve sufficient to meet daily cash needs. When times are good, banks lend to people and businesses who need capital, who in turn do things that add value to the overall economy. When times are bad, people and businesses either cannot get capital or pay more for it, which reduces the number of times that money changes hands and has a negative impact on the wider economy. People who are trying to sell you commodities or who have a naive view of how the economy actually works decry the current monetary system and throw around scary words like \"\"fiat currency\"\" and \"\"inflation is theft\"\". What these people don't realize is that before the present system, where the value of money is based on promises to repay, the gold and silver backed systems also experienced inflation. With gold/silver based money, inflation was driven by discoveries of gold and silver deposits\"" }, { "docid": "583903", "title": "", "text": "\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"" }, { "docid": "189889", "title": "", "text": "Each ATM, the machine, belongs to one or more networks. Those networks work with multiple types of cards. Each card belongs to one or more networks. The overlap of the networks the machine belongs to, and the card belongs to determines if the card works and what fees and limits apply. In general if the credit card belongs to one of the major networks (VISA, Master Card, American Express and Discover) you shouldn't have a problem finding a ATM that will give you a cash advance, or even a cash advance without an ATM Fee. Each credit card network should have a web interface to show you where the ATMs are that will work with the card. If it is a store credit card it still might belong to one of the major networks. If the bank that issues the card is local you can probably get a cash advance at the bank branch. Use the website to see if the ATM/Branch locations are convenient for you. The actual limits are a function of the card type, and the credit limit that you have been approved for. In my experience the maximum amount of cash advance outstanding is half the credit limit, but you need to check with your card. Keep in mind unless you have a special offer from the credit card company expect that there will be a fee charged by the credit card company for the cash advance, this is in addition to a fee charged by the ATM. Also remember that interest starts to accumulate on day one of the cash advance. It isn't like a regular purchase that might not be charged interest until the cycle closes and the payment is due. The documentation from the credit card company will describe all the fees and limits." }, { "docid": "442503", "title": "", "text": "To start with, you are right, there shouldn't be any additional fees other than the currency exchange fee - I'm not sure of the exact fee for Natwest, but for Halifax this was around 2.5% for big currencies like the Euro. However, Germany doesn't actually use debit cards nearly as much as we do here in the UK, so you will almost certainly need cash. Rather than taking this from a currency exchange booth, what you should do in order to get the lowest fees is head straight to the ATM of any bank, and put your card in to make a cash withdrawal. It will almost certainly ask if you want to use their exchange rate, which it will show you, and you will almost certainly be better turning this down and allowing Natwest to do this for you. Dependent on the bank their currency exchange spread may be as high as 4.5%. I hope this helps, it certainly saved me a lot of money when I have been going abroad." }, { "docid": "529879", "title": "", "text": "It would be better to use a bank account and have the refund deposited directly to it. But you said you never had a bank account, so that may be a problem. Another option is to have the refund check mailed to you, and you deposit it in your local bank, converting to your home currency (or not, depending on local laws). Generally, for another person to cash a check made out to you - you need to endorse it first. Physically, on the back of the check. That means you have to see the check. Specifically with tax refund checks there's much more scrutiny since there's a lot of fraud going on with regards to tax refunds. Thus, I doubt a bank would allow a third party cash a check made out to you, without you actually being present there." }, { "docid": "114679", "title": "", "text": "Assuming neither one charges a fee and you are talking about automated non-cash, non-check transactions: Withdrawal is slightly better if you are 100% sure you have the money (or better yet, twice the money) to cover it. It puts more incentive on the bank that is responsible for the act to do it correctly, because they will then be the bank holding the money. It also creates an added check because there is no possibility of having an error in transfer information result in sending your money to the wrong account. (This is unlikely anyway, but not impossible depending on the bank and interface). Deposit may be slightly better if you are not, or if you are concerned about technical foul-ups at the bank. Depending on the bank, a deposit with insufficient funds may be cancelled rather than going through and then being cancelled, which could result in various banking fees (returned item fees, overdraft fees, etc...). If there is a technical foul-up during a withdrawal, you run the risk of having banks get confused--I know of a case where it took a major bank months to fix a withdrawal transaction that was denied the second time when they activated it twice, but the account balance mistakenly showed an extra thousand dollars for the duration." }, { "docid": "300139", "title": "", "text": "\"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"" }, { "docid": "1897", "title": "", "text": "Wire transfers normally run through either the Fedwire system or the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The process generally works like this: You approach a bank or other financial institution and ask to transfer money. You give the bank a certain code, either an international bank account number or one of several other standards, which informs the bank where to send the money. The bank sends a message through a system like Fedwire to the receiving bank, along with settlement instructions. This is where the process can get a bit tricky. For the wire transfer to work, the banks must have reciprocal accounts with each other, or the sending bank must send the money to a bank that does have such an account with the receiver. If the sending bank sends the money to a third-party bank, the transaction is settled between them, and the money is then sent to the receiving bank from the third-party bank. This last transaction may be a wire transfer, ACH transfer, etc. The Federal Reserve fits into this because many banks hold accounts for this purpose with the Federal Reserve. This allows them to use the Fed as the third-party bank referred to above. Interestingly enough, this is one of the significant ways in which the Fed makes a profit, because it, along with every other bank and routing agent in the process, collects a miniscule fee on this process. You'll often find sources that state that Fedwire is only for transferring large transactions; while this is technically correct, it's important to understand that financial institutions don't settle every wire transfer or payment immediately. Although the orders are put in immediately, the financial institutions settle their transactions in bulk at the end of the business day, and even then they normally only settle the difference. So, if Chase owes Bank of America $1M, and Bank of America owes Chase $750K, they don't send these as two transactions; Chase simply credits BAC $250K. You didn't specifically ask about ACH transfers, which as littleadv pointed out, are different from wire transfers, but since ACH transfers can often form a part of the whole process, I'll explain that process too. ACH is a payment processing system that works through the Federal Reserve system, among others. The Federal Reserve (through the Fedline and FedACH systems) is by far the largest payment processor. The physical cash itself isn't transferred; in simple terms, the money is transferred through the ACH system between the accounts each bank maintains at the Federal Reserve. Here is a simple example of how the process works (I'm summarizing the example from Wikipedia). Let's say that Bob has an account with Chase and wants to get his paycheck from his employer, Stack Exchange, directly deposited into this account. Assume that Stack Exchange uses Bank of America as their bank. Bob, the receiver, fills out a direct deposit authorization form and gives it to his employer, called the originator. Once the originator has the authorization, they create an entry with an Originating Depository Financial Institution, which acts as a middleman between a payment processor (like the Federal Reserve) and the originator. The ODFI ensures that the transaction complies with the relevant regulations. In this example, Bank of America is the ODFI. Bank of America (the ODFI) converts the transaction request into an ACH entry and submits it, through an ACH operator, to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), which in this case is Chase bank. Chase credits (deposits) the paycheck in Bob's account. The Federal Reserve fits into all of this in several ways. Through systems like Fedline and FedACH, the Fed acts as an ACH operator, and the banks themselves also maintain accounts at the Federal Reserve, so it's the institution that actually performs the settling of accounts between banks." }, { "docid": "175778", "title": "", "text": "So this method makes sense and is reasonable and possible. The money multiplier effect ends up capped by the fact that the bank can only lend a percent of its 'cash'. My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%. Is this accurate? The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped. If the bank lends 900%, it has created this money from nothing, which by itself isn't different that the bank loaning 90% and keeping 10%. The issue comes because the next bank who gets that money deposited will treat that amount as cash as well, so they loan 900% of the 900%. And so on and so forth. How does the system prevent this from happening?" } ]

[ { "docid": "199508", "title": "", "text": "This may not answer your question but it may be an alternative. My credit union credits my account for deposits immediately (ones I make in an envelope). They view it as a service to their members. They take the risk that the member could deposit an empty envelope, say they deposited $400, and then withdraw the money. There may be banks in your country that do business this way." } ]

[ { "docid": "114679", "title": "", "text": "Assuming neither one charges a fee and you are talking about automated non-cash, non-check transactions: Withdrawal is slightly better if you are 100% sure you have the money (or better yet, twice the money) to cover it. It puts more incentive on the bank that is responsible for the act to do it correctly, because they will then be the bank holding the money. It also creates an added check because there is no possibility of having an error in transfer information result in sending your money to the wrong account. (This is unlikely anyway, but not impossible depending on the bank and interface). Deposit may be slightly better if you are not, or if you are concerned about technical foul-ups at the bank. Depending on the bank, a deposit with insufficient funds may be cancelled rather than going through and then being cancelled, which could result in various banking fees (returned item fees, overdraft fees, etc...). If there is a technical foul-up during a withdrawal, you run the risk of having banks get confused--I know of a case where it took a major bank months to fix a withdrawal transaction that was denied the second time when they activated it twice, but the account balance mistakenly showed an extra thousand dollars for the duration." }, { "docid": "415574", "title": "", "text": "So does Japan's. Japan Post is a bank as well as a post office. Which is something that would be a big boost to low income people who may have difficulty opening bank accounts. USPS bank accounts could be a kind of default for people to choose where their paychecks are deposited, allowing people to avoid those awful, awful check cashing sharks. Of course, the check cashing sharks have plenty of money to lobby against this, so it won't happen anytime soon." }, { "docid": "52441", "title": "", "text": "In banks and institutions where you could look at the money supply of M1 which is the physical currency in circulation compared to M2 which would be all the deposits that tend to be valued much more. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/ would be the link where as of Nov. 2014 the figures are M1 - 2,849.8 M2 - 11,588.7 Footnotes from that: M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) traveler's checks of nonbank issuers; (3) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (4) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) and automatic transfer service (ATS) accounts at depository institutions, credit union share draft accounts, and demand deposits at thrift institutions. Seasonally adjusted M1 is constructed by summing currency, traveler's checks, demand deposits, and OCDs, each seasonally adjusted separately. M2 consists of M1 plus (1) savings deposits (including money market deposit accounts); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000), less individual retirement account (IRA) and Keogh balances at depository institutions; and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds, less IRA and Keogh balances at money market mutual funds. Seasonally adjusted M2 is constructed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail money funds, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1. Where M1 sounds like the physical money outside the banks and M2 is the money inside the banks. Did you mean something more specific here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product would be a link about GDP in terms of economic output that has more than a few pieces to it that I'm sure whole courses in college are devoted to understanding this measurement." }, { "docid": "432116", "title": "", "text": "Typically Banks look for a steady source of income or savings based on which they issue a credit card. If you can't show that build a cash balance and show it. For Example if you have an PPF account with say SBI, they issue you a card with a limit of around 50% of the balance in PPF. No other documentation is required. Similarly if you have Fixed Deposits for a large amount quite a few Banks would give you a Credit Card. My wife has a credit card because she had a good balance [around 100,000 INR] for around a year, the Bank kept calling her and offered her a card." }, { "docid": "224000", "title": "", "text": "\"A money order is basically a pre-paid check. The physical cash would probably get deposited into a \"\"master\"\" custodial bank account. Each money order has a different bank account number on the check where the funds are available as you have paid-for already. With the routing number as well, your traditional bank account will be able to process it as a deposit. For USPS money orders though, they can be cashed directly at their retail locations.\"" }, { "docid": "300139", "title": "", "text": "\"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"" }, { "docid": "346042", "title": "", "text": "When you pay cash for a car, you don't always necessarily need to pay cash. You just aren't using credit or a loan is all. A few options you have are: Obviously no dealer expects anyone to just have the cash laying around for a car worth a few thousand dollars, nor would you bother going to your bank or credit union for the cash. You can simply get a cashier's check made out for the amount. Note that dealers may not accept personal checks as they may bounce. After negotiations at the dealer, you would explain you're paying cash, likely pay a deposit (depending on the price of the car, but $500 would probably be enough. Again, the deposit can be a check or bank deposit), and then come back later on with a cashier's check, or deposit into a bank account. You would be able to do this later that day or within a few days, but since you've purchased a new car you would probably want to return ASAP!" }, { "docid": "410476", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't know if those machines work this way in the UK too, but here in the US you can often avoid the coin-counting fee if you opt to convert the money into a gift certificate instead of cash. I routinely convert my coins to Amazon gift certificate money with no charge. Individual machines differ in which particular gift cards they use, but at the least, almost all of them offer the option for a no-fee conversion to a voucher/gift certificate to the store where the machine is. So it's likely you'd be able to use the machine to convert the cash to \"\"money\"\" you can use to buy groceries.\"" }, { "docid": "320672", "title": "", "text": "\"wrong! people create \"\"money\"\" by lending it to the banks.... Banks are effectivly just exchanges between depositors and lenders, i.e. an IOU exchange. When you deposit $1000, you LOAN the bank $1000. AND the normal way you deposit $1000, is by an IOU of $1000 by someone else like your employer, NOT by showing up in the bank with cash. (NB: checks are IOUs) The issuing/central bank do occationally create money, if the normal banks have more customers wanting to borrow than lend. However, that source of money may be raised by the central bank issuing bonds rather than new money.\"" }, { "docid": "427032", "title": "", "text": "First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all." }, { "docid": "18727", "title": "", "text": "Will 2 millions dollars check to be cash? Will a bank convert a check to cash? In my experience, no. Even for small checks. Unless you happen to have a VERY good relationship with your banker (read as: have an existing large bank balance.) The exception is if you go to the bank the check is drawn on. But even then, I doubt they'll cash a $2M dollar check. Can you deposit a $2M dollar check? Most definitely. How long will 2 millions dollars check to be cash? Depends on your bank's policies, relationship with you, and the origination of the check. You'll need to talk to the exact bank in question to find out. Some guidelines from my own experiences: Out of country checks will take quite awhile, say 4 weeks, even for trivial amounts. I'm not sure what a $2M size would do. Beyond that situation, it will likely depend on whether you have more money than the check's worth in your bank accounts. If so, they may be willing to give you cash in a few days. Or if you only want some of the money as cash in a few days, that might be possible. If the bank couldn't cash for him, will the bank give him some of cash for example, $500,000 for now, and the rest wait to be cash at later time like 24 hours or 1 week? Unless you already have a lot of money in your relationship with the bank, I think it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY they will let you have ANY of the money in 24 hours. You MIGHT get some of it in a week. The issue will be that such a large check will be viewed as having a high chance of being fraudulent, so they will want to be exceptionally conservative." }, { "docid": "122491", "title": "", "text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"" }, { "docid": "307404", "title": "", "text": "I am a non-resident alien transferring a limited amount ( in dollars post tax) to India every couple of months. Assuming you are transferring this into an NRE account in India or atleast NRO account in India. As a NRI, by regulations one should not hold normal Savings account. This has to be converted into NRO. I put that money as a fixed deposit in a bank (which gives 6-7 percent annual return) Assuming you have FCNR deposits. Also assuming that you are declaring the taxes in your US Tax returns and paying tax accordingly. There is no tax in India on FCNR. If this was in ordinary FD or in NRO account, you are declaring and paying taxes in India as well as in US. What is the max limit on transferring money back from India to USA? If you have transferred this into NRE account, there is no limit. Other account there is a limit. Read more at Liberalized Remittance Scheme and here. What are the legitimate ways to transfer the money? From India point of view, this has to be Bank to Bank transfers. You can't carry cash [Indian Rupees] outside of India beyond Rs 25000 [or 15000?]. You can't hold excess of USD 250 without valid purpose. Western Union is not authorized to transfer funds out of India. Will there be any tax levied? No assuming you are already paying taxes on the Interest in US and depending on the type of account in India." }, { "docid": "309388", "title": "", "text": "This is determined by each banking institution. In general, if making the withdrawal in person, the limit is based on what you have in your account, but many ask for advance notice when withdrawing more than $5000. They may still allow a larger withdrawal without notice, but usually have a policy in place and will tell you over the phone. You should also be aware that the bank is required to report withdrawals totaling $10,000 or more in a day to the treasury department and may require extra paper work (businesses are often exempted or at least have higher amounts). For very large withdrawals, you would definitely have to wait, but you may not be able to get an answer over the phone as to how long unless you actually have $600K on deposit at that bank. They will have some kind of protocol to handle such a request, i.e. teller will talk to a manager, who may have to make a call to a regional or national office and make special arrangements. Most branches don't want to have their regular stash of cash plus an extra $600K lying around. There are insurance and security concerns. The increased potential for theft can put employees and other customers at risk. They may also not feel comfortable unloading bags of money from their vault or armored truck into the back of your car. While this is a very uncommon scenario, it has actually happened before. It took 'weeks' and when funds were available, additional security and police escorts were called in. Edit: You can find summaries of the regulations here and here and more complete info here. In general, the money should be available within 1-8 business days after it is deposited depending on the nature and amount of the deposit, but the regulations are really designed for more ordinary transactions. For a $600K withdrawal, the bank can cite security issues and decline to honor the request in cash. If you ask, your bank should provide their standard policy, which could include language such as this: We require prior notice for large cash withdrawals. We can refuse an order to withdraw funds in cash or to cash an item if we believe that the request is a security risk or possesses a hardship on the Bank. We may require you to accept an Official Check or electronic transfer to receive the funds. If we agree to a large cash withdrawal, you may be required to employ a courier service acceptable to us and at your risk and expense. If a large cash withdrawal is completed at a branch you will be required to sign a cash withdrawal agreement. Refusal to sign the agreement is grounds for us to revoke the cash withdrawal and require an alternate delivery for the funds. You might also find this question interesting." }, { "docid": "556233", "title": "", "text": "You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters)." }, { "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": "393823", "title": "", "text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away." }, { "docid": "108390", "title": "", "text": "There were several incidences of cash shortages in the Danish system recently. On particular saturdays when the streets were bloated with shoppers, you could see the queues for the ATMs stretching for 40-50 yards, and people shaking their heads about why their cards didnt work in the shops. They have a separate national system to visa called Dankort which everyone is very proud of. But it is curiously prone to failures from time to time. Large cash transactions (over 10,000 DKK) are monitored and questioned verbally when withdrawn or deposited in banks. Interesting also how Danish banks are the most heavily leveraged in Europe..." }, { "docid": "458485", "title": "", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "446340", "title": "", "text": "I know that many HSBC ATMs at branches in the US and Canada offer this service (they actually scan and shred checks as you deposit them). Perhaps they do same in Germany... but not all ATMs offer this feature." } ]

[ { "docid": "189889", "title": "", "text": "Each ATM, the machine, belongs to one or more networks. Those networks work with multiple types of cards. Each card belongs to one or more networks. The overlap of the networks the machine belongs to, and the card belongs to determines if the card works and what fees and limits apply. In general if the credit card belongs to one of the major networks (VISA, Master Card, American Express and Discover) you shouldn't have a problem finding a ATM that will give you a cash advance, or even a cash advance without an ATM Fee. Each credit card network should have a web interface to show you where the ATMs are that will work with the card. If it is a store credit card it still might belong to one of the major networks. If the bank that issues the card is local you can probably get a cash advance at the bank branch. Use the website to see if the ATM/Branch locations are convenient for you. The actual limits are a function of the card type, and the credit limit that you have been approved for. In my experience the maximum amount of cash advance outstanding is half the credit limit, but you need to check with your card. Keep in mind unless you have a special offer from the credit card company expect that there will be a fee charged by the credit card company for the cash advance, this is in addition to a fee charged by the ATM. Also remember that interest starts to accumulate on day one of the cash advance. It isn't like a regular purchase that might not be charged interest until the cycle closes and the payment is due. The documentation from the credit card company will describe all the fees and limits." }, { "docid": "146761", "title": "", "text": "A bank needs to make sure they won't lose money by cashing a check. When you have an account with a bank and you cash a check, if the check ends up not getting paid, the bank will take the money back out of your account. This could happen for a number of reasons: the check could bounce (not enough money in the check writer's account), it could be a fraudulent (fake) check, or the payment could have been stopped on that check. Treasury checks are more problematic for banks than private checks; the government has given themselves more power to refuse to pay a check than the average person has. As a result, banks are already overly cautious about cashing treasury checks. The fact that you have a big check increases the risk for the bank. You'll have to ask around at different banks to see what they will do for you and what type of fee (if any) they will charge. Some banks might cash it for a fee; others might require that you open a savings account and wait a certain number of days after depositing the check before withdrawing your money." }, { "docid": "99484", "title": "", "text": "\"Depositing above $10,000 in cash into a bank automatically triggers warnings in the banks computer system, and reports are submitted to appropriate authorities. Every bank has to do its, it's the law. If you \"\"structure\"\" your deposits where you put in several cash deposits below $10,000 that's a crime and bank computers are very sensitive to picking up on that. They're so sensitive to structuring that innocent people get flagged by it all the time. So I recommend only depositing $6k or less of that money into banks. What do you want to do with the money? If you want to use it to buy stuff in person at stores then I recommend just using it at the counter instead of credit cards. If you want to buy things online with it then I recommend bitcoin. It's anonymous, the IRS won't know it's yours, and it's easy to buy what you need with bitcoin. You can easily exchange bitcoin for cash among your neighbors using apps like PaxFul, LocalBitcoins, and BitQuick. They'll give you bitcoin which you'd load onto an app called a \"\"wallet\"\", for example Mycelium or Blockchain.info. You can buy just about anything online with bitcoin these days: from computers at newegg, to hotels at expedia, to airplane tickets at cheapair.com, to anything on amazon at 20% off using purse.io, or you can invest it by offer people around the world loans at BTCJam.com and they pay you back with interest. You can hold on to bitcoin as it grows in value, or you can donate it to any of the thousands of charities around the world who accept it. You can even use it to support presidential campaigns (at this time, only Rand Paul's campaign and Joe Biden's SuperPAC accept bitcoin).\"" }, { "docid": "224000", "title": "", "text": "\"A money order is basically a pre-paid check. The physical cash would probably get deposited into a \"\"master\"\" custodial bank account. Each money order has a different bank account number on the check where the funds are available as you have paid-for already. With the routing number as well, your traditional bank account will be able to process it as a deposit. For USPS money orders though, they can be cashed directly at their retail locations.\"" }, { "docid": "233251", "title": "", "text": "\"Changed to answer match the edited version of the question No, you do not need to write the date of your endorsement, but you can choose to do so if you want to. The bank stamp on the back will likely have the date and perhaps even the exact time when the check was deposited. The two lines are there in case you want to write something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# uvwxyz\"\" above your signature (always a good idea if you are making the deposit by sending the paper check (with or without a deposit slip) by US mail or any other method that doesn't involve you handing the check to a bank teller). If you are wanting to get encash the check, that is, get cash in return for handing the check over to the bank instead of depositing the check in your account, then the rules are quite a bit different.\"" }, { "docid": "346537", "title": "", "text": "Deposit check and send a personal check (resulting in tax and IRS reporting issues) That's a bad idea, unless maybe the check you're receiving is a certified bank draft. Suppose the insurance company are crooks and the check is fraudulent. It could take weeks or months for some investigation to catch up to that, long after your own personal check was cashed by the pharmacy. The bank will then put you on hook for the 20 grand by reversing the check, even though the funds had been deposited into your account. Do not put yourself into the position of a money handler; you don't have the cash base, insurance, government protection and whatever else that a bank has. And, of course, you're being a free money handler if you do that. (You're not even compensated for postage, time and whatnot). If you're handling money between two parties, you should collect a percentage, or else refuse. That percentage has to be in proportion to the risk, since cashing a check for someone carries a risk similar to (and is effectively a form of) making a loan." }, { "docid": "583903", "title": "", "text": "\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"" }, { "docid": "115916", "title": "", "text": "One option is that the buyer brings cash and you together with the buyer go the bank where you have an account and deposit the money there - then the bank checks the cash and once the cash is accepted you no longer care if it was counterfeit. Once money is deposited you handle the keys." }, { "docid": "108390", "title": "", "text": "There were several incidences of cash shortages in the Danish system recently. On particular saturdays when the streets were bloated with shoppers, you could see the queues for the ATMs stretching for 40-50 yards, and people shaking their heads about why their cards didnt work in the shops. They have a separate national system to visa called Dankort which everyone is very proud of. But it is curiously prone to failures from time to time. Large cash transactions (over 10,000 DKK) are monitored and questioned verbally when withdrawn or deposited in banks. Interesting also how Danish banks are the most heavily leveraged in Europe..." }, { "docid": "556233", "title": "", "text": "You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters)." }, { "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": "78623", "title": "", "text": "\"At least in the US, a Cashier's Check is just like a regular personal check - only it's guaranteed by the bank itself, so the person accepting it can be pretty certain the check won't be returned for insufficient funds...if the check is genuine! Most banks therefore have a policy for cashier's checks that is very similar to their policies on regular checks and money orders: if you are a member with an account in good standing, they'll make all or part of the money available to you according to their fund availability policy, which is usually anywhere from \"\"immediately\"\" to 7-10 days. With amounts over $5,000, banks will tend to put a hold on the funds to ensure it clears and they get their money. If you are not a member then many banks will refuse to cash the check at all, unless the cashier's check is drawn on on that brand of bank. So if the cashier's check is issued by, say, Chase Bank, Chase banks will usually be willing to cash out the entire check to you immediately (with properly provided ID). Because the bank is guaranteed by them they are able to check their system and ensure the check is real and can clear the check instantly. This policy isn't just up to individual banks entirely, as it is defined by United States federal banking policies and federal regulations on availability of funds. If you really must cash the check without a holding period and won't/can't have a bank account of your own to perform this, then you will generally need to go into a branch of the bank that is guaranteeing the check to be able to cash it out fully right away. Note that since the check might be issued by a bank with no branch near you, you should have a back-up plan. Generally banks will allow you to setup a special/limited savings-only account to deposit your check, even if you don't have a checking account, so if no other option works you might try that as well. The funds availability policies are the same, but at least you'll be able to cash it generally in 10 days time (and then close the account and withdraw your money).\"" }, { "docid": "82812", "title": "", "text": "Commercial banks are not allowed to create real money. The confusion comes from the different ways money is counted. In M2, deposits count as money. So if you take $100 and deposit it in the bank, M2 will count the $100 deposit as money, as well as the $100 cash the bank has from the deposit. So under M2 the money supply has increased by $100, but no real money was created. Commercial banks can't create real money out of thin air, and they can't loan out money they don't have." }, { "docid": "229246", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple of advantages that I can think of. Since the machines are less complicated because they don't have to handle cash, they are less expensive and require less maintenance. Machines that handle cash require lots of moving parts. Cash machines require lots of employee interaction. The machines need to be stocked with cash each day, and at the end of the day the cash needs to be taken out and counted. With a cashless machine, the computer does all the work." }, { "docid": "396339", "title": "", "text": "Safe deposit boxes are rented out to customers, and their content is not bank's property. Money deposits are not being taken by the creditors if a bank goes bankrupt, for the same reason - its not bank's money, it belongs to the depositors. However, frequently banks go bankrupt because they do not have enough cash at hand to pay back the depositors. In this case, unless insured (up to $250K in the US, EUR100K in EU), some or all of the deposits may not be immediately (or even at all) available. Depositors become creditors of the bank in the bankruptcy proceedings. Safe deposit box, however, is rented to the customer, and the content is not removed by the bank to be used elsewhere, as happens with monetary deposits. So even if the bank is bankrupt and doesn't have enough money to cover the monetary deposits, the content of the safe deposit boxes doesn't magically disappear, and the owner can get it back. The access to the deposit box itself may be limited due to the bankruptcy, but the content will remain there waiting for its owners. In the United States, when a bank goes bankrupt, FDIC takes over it and its assets. Safe deposit box rental contract is an asset. It is taken over by the FDIC and will be sold to a buyer (usually as a part of the whole branch where the box is located), who will continue operating/servicing it." }, { "docid": "372308", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Look most of the time you can manage it sure. It is managed all the time. Even in the hypothetical crisis, it is still being managed. &gt;But without the lender of last resort(central bank) bank runs would happen and failures would be common, like in 19th century. One of the principal reasons for a lender of last resort. However, the system functions perfectly well without a lender of last resort unless there is also a hardening of the interbank market. &gt;The only way to stabilise fractional reserve banking It is not the only way. It is the best way in many respects. We could also change the terms and conditions of deposits such that all deposits require notice or have fixed term etc etc. This is without even considering what can be achieved with derivative instruments. &gt;can abuse its power It can also not abuse its power. See the Bundesbank of West Germany, or the central banks of Australia or New Zealand. Even the Federal Reserve Banks are actually not terrible in the global scale of central banks. &gt;excess credit expansion causing economic bubbles Economic bubbles occur independently of the presence of a central bank. See the 'Tulip Madess'." }, { "docid": "123902", "title": "", "text": "They cannot refuse to accept coins and demand some other payment after providing a good or service. Legal tender is legal tender for all debts. But until they provide the good or service, they don't have to accept it. In this case, you want the service of depositing money. But by its nature, they have to accept the payment first. In that situation, they can refuse it. There is no law that banks have to accept your deposits. If they don't want you as a customer, that's their problem. Consider switching banks. Historically this was easier and some banks may still do things the old way. Call your local banks and ask. Perhaps you'll find someone happy to do business with you, on your terms. As already said, some coin rolling machines will pay you with gift certificates. If you plan to buy a sufficient amount from the place that accepts the gift certificate, this can get that place to play the fee. That may help you, although it is obviously a limited solution. The goal is to make it so that you only make purchases that you would have anyway. The seller obviously has a different goal. It's possible to buy coin sorters. Heck, you could buy one with a gift certificate from a public machine. Cheap ones require extra work to get the coins rolled and may jam a lot. More expensive ones do more of the work for you. Note that a given sorter that works better may be cheaper than another that doesn't work as well. Cheap is more of a qualitative judgment than a financial measure in this case. If you carry a small amount of change with you, pretty much everywhere accepts small amounts of change for purchases. So if you have been always paying with dollars and dumping the change in a jar, instead always give the correct change (coins). They may still give you dollars in change, but at least you won't get new coins. And you'll use some of your existing coins. Of course, this doesn't scale well. For small purchases, say $1.50, you can often pay the whole thing in change without argument. Or if something is $18.50, you might give them $10, $5, two $1 bills, and the rest in change. If you are buying something and can see that they have little change in one of the coin buckets, offer to swap some change for bills. Sometimes places find that easier than breaking a roll. With vending machines, use change instead of dollar bills. Especially use exact change so as not to convert bills to change. They usually don't take pennies, but they're great with nickels and above. This won't allow you to use change as a way to force yourself to save. But it will keep your change down to a manageable level going forward. And you might be able to use up your existing store. I'm assuming that this isn't a fifty year coin collection that you are just now starting to process. But if you have six months of change, you should be able to use it up in a year or so. I tend to do this. So I rarely have more than a couple dollars in change. No one ever tells me that they don't take change, because I don't give anyone a lot. Maybe $.99 here but more likely $.43 there. Sometimes I give them, e.g., $.07 so as to get $.25 in change rather than $.18. It's a little more work at every transaction, but it saves the big clump of work of rolling the coins. And you don't have to buy wrappers." }, { "docid": "175778", "title": "", "text": "So this method makes sense and is reasonable and possible. The money multiplier effect ends up capped by the fact that the bank can only lend a percent of its 'cash'. My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%. Is this accurate? The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped. If the bank lends 900%, it has created this money from nothing, which by itself isn't different that the bank loaning 90% and keeping 10%. The issue comes because the next bank who gets that money deposited will treat that amount as cash as well, so they loan 900% of the 900%. And so on and so forth. How does the system prevent this from happening?" }, { "docid": "506909", "title": "", "text": "Many brokerage accounts for trading stocks are covered under SIPC insurance, which is up to $500,000 You can also have multiple checking and savings accounts with the $250,000 balance split up. You can also check your bank's capital ratio on the FDIC website, somewhere. The FDIC won't move on them unless it falls under 3% and even then FDIC will force them into receivership and sell them to a bigger bank before they go bust and experience losses of customer deposits. This is what mostly happened when hundreds of banks failed during the crisis from 2008-2010. There were very isolated events where customers actually lost their cash balances, and that was mostly because those customers had completely uninsured accounts. As that was the most extreme moment in US and global financial history, you should be able to judge risk with the aforementioned information in mind. You can stay in a cash balance easily and be fully insured." } ]

[ { "docid": "566602", "title": "", "text": "In my experience Sparkasse or VR Bank have them quite often. They stick out in my mind because when you make a withdrawal you have to reach in to get your money instead of it spitting it out. I'm always afraid its going to chop my hand off." } ]

[ { "docid": "396339", "title": "", "text": "Safe deposit boxes are rented out to customers, and their content is not bank's property. Money deposits are not being taken by the creditors if a bank goes bankrupt, for the same reason - its not bank's money, it belongs to the depositors. However, frequently banks go bankrupt because they do not have enough cash at hand to pay back the depositors. In this case, unless insured (up to $250K in the US, EUR100K in EU), some or all of the deposits may not be immediately (or even at all) available. Depositors become creditors of the bank in the bankruptcy proceedings. Safe deposit box, however, is rented to the customer, and the content is not removed by the bank to be used elsewhere, as happens with monetary deposits. So even if the bank is bankrupt and doesn't have enough money to cover the monetary deposits, the content of the safe deposit boxes doesn't magically disappear, and the owner can get it back. The access to the deposit box itself may be limited due to the bankruptcy, but the content will remain there waiting for its owners. In the United States, when a bank goes bankrupt, FDIC takes over it and its assets. Safe deposit box rental contract is an asset. It is taken over by the FDIC and will be sold to a buyer (usually as a part of the whole branch where the box is located), who will continue operating/servicing it." }, { "docid": "233251", "title": "", "text": "\"Changed to answer match the edited version of the question No, you do not need to write the date of your endorsement, but you can choose to do so if you want to. The bank stamp on the back will likely have the date and perhaps even the exact time when the check was deposited. The two lines are there in case you want to write something like \"\"For deposit only to Acct# uvwxyz\"\" above your signature (always a good idea if you are making the deposit by sending the paper check (with or without a deposit slip) by US mail or any other method that doesn't involve you handing the check to a bank teller). If you are wanting to get encash the check, that is, get cash in return for handing the check over to the bank instead of depositing the check in your account, then the rules are quite a bit different.\"" }, { "docid": "583903", "title": "", "text": "\"On contrary of what Mike Scott suggested, I think in case of EURO DOOM it's a lot safer if your savings were changed into another currency in advance. Beware that bringing your money into an EURO CORE country (like Finland, Austria, Germany, Nethereland) it's useful if you think those banks are safer, but totally useless to avoid the conversion of your saving from Euro into your national currency. In case of EURO CRASH, only the Central Bank will decide what happens to ALL the Euro deposited wherever, single banks, even if they are Deutsche Bank or BNP or ING, can not decide what to do on their own. ECB (European Central Bank) might decide to convert EURO into local currencies based on the account's owner nationality. Therefor if you are Greek and you moved your saving in a German bank, the ECB might decide that your Euro are converted into New Dracma even if they sit in a German bank account. The funniest thing is that if you ask to a Finland bank: \"\"In case of Euro crash, would you convert my Euro into New Dracma?\"\", they sure would answer \"\"No, we can't!\"\", which is true, they can not because it's only the ECB (Europe Central Bank) the one that decides how an ordered Euro crash has to be manged, and the ECB might decide as I explained you above. Other Central Banks (Swiss, FED, etc.) would only follow the decisions of the ECB. Moreover in case of EURO DOOM, it's highly probable that the Euro currency looses a tremendous value compared to other currencies, the loss would be huge in case the Euro Crash happens in a disordered way (i.e. a strong country like Germany and their banks decides to get out and they start printing their own money w/o listening to the ECB anymore). So even if your saving are in Euro in Germany they would loose so much value (compared to other currencies) that you will regreat forever not to have converted them into another currency when you had the time to do it. Couple of advises: 1) If you want to change you savings into another currency you don't need to bring them into another bank/country (like US), you could simply buy US Shares/Bonds at your local bank. Shares/Bonds of a US company/US gov will always be worth their value in dollars no matter in what new pathetic currency your account will be converted. 2) But is there a drawback in converting my saving into another currency (i.e. buying dollars in the form of US treasury bonds)? Unfortunately yes, the drawback is that in case this Euro drama comes finally to an happy ending and Germans decide to open their wallets for the nth time to save the currency, the Euro might suddenly increase its value compared to other currencies, therefor if you changed your saving into another currency you might loose money (i.e. US dollars looses value against the Euro).\"" }, { "docid": "594157", "title": "", "text": "There's no need to move it to a different currency, but if your bank is in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain or Greece, you might consider moving it to a different Eurozone country. Finland, Austria, Germany or the Netherlands seem safest at present. There's a small risk of a forcible Eurozone exit followed by redenomination of bank deposits into a new currency that will immediately collapse." }, { "docid": "6426", "title": "", "text": "With reference to the UK: Structured deposits should not be confused with structured products. Structured deposits are often, quite simple deposit accounts. You place your money into what is essentially a deposit account, and are therefore guaranteed not to lose your capital as with any other deposit account. The attraction is that you could earn more than you would in a normal deposit account, often around double, due to indirect exposure to the markets. Another benefit is that structured deposits can form part of your annual cash ISA allowance, so the returns can be tax free. These products are popular with those who have savings which they are happy to deposit away for between 3 and 6 years, and are looking for better rates of return than standard cash ISAs or savings accounts. The main drawback is that you may not receive anything other than your original deposit. That poses a minimal risk if your savings are earning less than 1% currently. See my article at financialandrew.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fed-up-with-low-returns-from-cash-isas.html for a more rounded overview of the structured deposits." }, { "docid": "556233", "title": "", "text": "You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters)." }, { "docid": "150543", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you can do it as long as those money don't come from illegal activities (money laundering, etc). The only taxes you should pay are on the interest generated by those money while sitting in the UK bank account. Since I suppose you already paid taxes on those money in Greece while you were earning those money. About being audited, in my own experience banks don't ask you much where your money are coming from when you bring money to them, they are very willing to help, and happy. (It's a differnte story when you ask to borrow money). When I opened a bank account in US I did not even have an SSN, but they didn't care much they just took my passport and used the passport number for registering the account. Obviously on the interest generated by the money in the US bank account I had to pay taxes, but it was easy because I simply let the IRS via the bank to withdarw the 27% on the interest generated (not on the capital deposited). I didn't put a huge amount of money there I had to live there for 1 year or some more. Maybe if i deposited a huge amount of money someone would have come to ask me how did I make all those money, but those money were legally generated by me working in Italy before so I didn't have anything to be afraid about. BTW: in Italy I was thinking to move money to a German bank in Germany. The risk of default is a nightmare, something of completly new now in UE compared to the past where each state had its own currency. According to Muro history says that in case of default it happened that some government prevented people from withdrawing money form bank accounts: \"\"Yes, historically governments have shut down banks to prevent people from withdrawing their money in times of crisis. See Argentina circa 2001 or US during Great Depression. The government prevented people from withdrawing their money and people could do nothing while their money rapidly lost value.\"\" but in case Greece prevents people from withdrwaing money, those money are still in EURO, so i'm wondering what would be the effect. I mean would it be fair that a Greek guy can not withdraw is EURO money whilest an Italian guy can withdraw the same currency money in Italy?!\"" }, { "docid": "114679", "title": "", "text": "Assuming neither one charges a fee and you are talking about automated non-cash, non-check transactions: Withdrawal is slightly better if you are 100% sure you have the money (or better yet, twice the money) to cover it. It puts more incentive on the bank that is responsible for the act to do it correctly, because they will then be the bank holding the money. It also creates an added check because there is no possibility of having an error in transfer information result in sending your money to the wrong account. (This is unlikely anyway, but not impossible depending on the bank and interface). Deposit may be slightly better if you are not, or if you are concerned about technical foul-ups at the bank. Depending on the bank, a deposit with insufficient funds may be cancelled rather than going through and then being cancelled, which could result in various banking fees (returned item fees, overdraft fees, etc...). If there is a technical foul-up during a withdrawal, you run the risk of having banks get confused--I know of a case where it took a major bank months to fix a withdrawal transaction that was denied the second time when they activated it twice, but the account balance mistakenly showed an extra thousand dollars for the duration." }, { "docid": "530446", "title": "", "text": "There are two basic issues here. First, there is the difference between accounting terms and their dictionary definitions. Second, once you dig into it there are dichotomies similar to put vs call options, long sales vs short sales, bond yield vs interest rate. (That is, while they are relatively simple ideas and opposite sides of the same coin, it will probably take some effort to get comfortable with them.) The salient points from the Wikipedia article on debits and credits: In double-entry bookkeeping debit is used for increases in asset and expense transactions and credit is used for increases in a liability, income (gain) or equity transaction. For bank transactions, money deposited in a checking account is treated as a credit transaction (increase) and money paid out is treated as a debit transaction, because checking account balances are bank liabilities. If cash is deposited, the cash becomes a bank asset and is treated as a debit transaction (increase) to a bank asset account. Thus a cash deposit becomes two equal increases: a debit to cash on hand and a credit to a customer's checking account. Your bank account is an asset to you, but a liability to your bank. That makes for a third issue, namely perspective." }, { "docid": "442503", "title": "", "text": "To start with, you are right, there shouldn't be any additional fees other than the currency exchange fee - I'm not sure of the exact fee for Natwest, but for Halifax this was around 2.5% for big currencies like the Euro. However, Germany doesn't actually use debit cards nearly as much as we do here in the UK, so you will almost certainly need cash. Rather than taking this from a currency exchange booth, what you should do in order to get the lowest fees is head straight to the ATM of any bank, and put your card in to make a cash withdrawal. It will almost certainly ask if you want to use their exchange rate, which it will show you, and you will almost certainly be better turning this down and allowing Natwest to do this for you. Dependent on the bank their currency exchange spread may be as high as 4.5%. I hope this helps, it certainly saved me a lot of money when I have been going abroad." }, { "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": "521233", "title": "", "text": "\"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all \"\"depositor\"\" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms \"\"risky\"\". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their \"\"investment banking\"\" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on \"\"risky\"\" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money. So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it. In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\"; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is \"\"quantitative easing\"\", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with \"\"new\"\" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having \"\"too much money\"\" and so making money worth less than what it can buy). What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the \"\"spot market price\"\" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out \"\"jitters\"\" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low \"\"buy offers\"\" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in \"\"reserve\"\", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a \"\"run\"\" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of \"\"deposited assets\"\" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it.\"" }, { "docid": "403288", "title": "", "text": "\"Careful, this could be a scam. But if not.... There is no feasible way to turn that into cash without a very good reason that will require your banker to know you, as a depositor, reasonably well. And it sounds like you aren't banked at all. If this is your money, please pay attention - Class in America is defined by financial knowledge. If you are unbanked and lower class, $2M is actually dangerous - read a book called \"\"Money for Nothing\"\" about what happens to lottery winners. Honestly the tendency is for lower-class people to be possessed to keep making lower-class financial decisions, which directly lead them to be broke and bankrupt in months regardless of the size of the windfall. So making decisions differently is literally rehab... No exaggeration. To change your thinking, you'll want to read Suze Orman, John Bogle and Napoleon Hill. For an American who thinks about money the way the upper-middle-class does, $2M in the bank means the end of the 9-5 grind. He will still need to work, but will be able to be much more selective about choosing jobs which are fulfilling. It brings him the utopia we were promised. If you are currently unbanked, you will simply need to get banked to handle a check of this size. Handling this much cash is literally impossible due to the RICO laws designed to stop drug dealing and money laundering. Even if you split it into many small amounts, that itself is structuring which is a felony all its own. So let's get banked. A $2M check is a terrible entré into the banking world because it makes you smell like a criminal or scammer at first introduction. I could deposit one no problem because I have 10 years of history with my bank. But you, you'll need to convince the bank you're the real deal, and give them reason to trust you. Be prepared to that \"\"trust\"\" to include depositing some money... at the least, the bank will want to know you're good for the bad-check fees they suspect will follow. Go to a local bank or savings-and-loan that you trust, the smaller the better, and sit down with a banker. Describe your situation honestly and have him open an account and deposit the check. If your burned your ability to open checking accounts with a ChexSystems mark, you'll need to be more selective about banks and be honest about that to the banker. And wait a month for that check to clear positively, believe me your banker will be watching that. At that point, if you want great bunches of the money out quickly, it'll need to be in the form of a cheque or bank check. Cash ain't gonna happen, nor should it. The reason is, again, the RICO laws. Of course, if you are a criminal or scam victim, none of the above applies, sorry.\"" }, { "docid": "346042", "title": "", "text": "When you pay cash for a car, you don't always necessarily need to pay cash. You just aren't using credit or a loan is all. A few options you have are: Obviously no dealer expects anyone to just have the cash laying around for a car worth a few thousand dollars, nor would you bother going to your bank or credit union for the cash. You can simply get a cashier's check made out for the amount. Note that dealers may not accept personal checks as they may bounce. After negotiations at the dealer, you would explain you're paying cash, likely pay a deposit (depending on the price of the car, but $500 would probably be enough. Again, the deposit can be a check or bank deposit), and then come back later on with a cashier's check, or deposit into a bank account. You would be able to do this later that day or within a few days, but since you've purchased a new car you would probably want to return ASAP!" }, { "docid": "393823", "title": "", "text": "Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away." }, { "docid": "421752", "title": "", "text": "\"Basically, in any financial system that features fractional reserve banking, the monetary supply expands during times of prosperity. Stable, low inflation of 2-4% keeps capital available while keeping the value of money stable. It also discourages hoarding of wealth. Banks aren't vaults. They take deposits and make an explicit promise to repay the depositor on demand. Since most depositors don't need to withdraw money regularly, the lend out the money you deposited and maintain a reserve sufficient to meet daily cash needs. When times are good, banks lend to people and businesses who need capital, who in turn do things that add value to the overall economy. When times are bad, people and businesses either cannot get capital or pay more for it, which reduces the number of times that money changes hands and has a negative impact on the wider economy. People who are trying to sell you commodities or who have a naive view of how the economy actually works decry the current monetary system and throw around scary words like \"\"fiat currency\"\" and \"\"inflation is theft\"\". What these people don't realize is that before the present system, where the value of money is based on promises to repay, the gold and silver backed systems also experienced inflation. With gold/silver based money, inflation was driven by discoveries of gold and silver deposits\"" }, { "docid": "471789", "title": "", "text": "Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance." }, { "docid": "78623", "title": "", "text": "\"At least in the US, a Cashier's Check is just like a regular personal check - only it's guaranteed by the bank itself, so the person accepting it can be pretty certain the check won't be returned for insufficient funds...if the check is genuine! Most banks therefore have a policy for cashier's checks that is very similar to their policies on regular checks and money orders: if you are a member with an account in good standing, they'll make all or part of the money available to you according to their fund availability policy, which is usually anywhere from \"\"immediately\"\" to 7-10 days. With amounts over $5,000, banks will tend to put a hold on the funds to ensure it clears and they get their money. If you are not a member then many banks will refuse to cash the check at all, unless the cashier's check is drawn on on that brand of bank. So if the cashier's check is issued by, say, Chase Bank, Chase banks will usually be willing to cash out the entire check to you immediately (with properly provided ID). Because the bank is guaranteed by them they are able to check their system and ensure the check is real and can clear the check instantly. This policy isn't just up to individual banks entirely, as it is defined by United States federal banking policies and federal regulations on availability of funds. If you really must cash the check without a holding period and won't/can't have a bank account of your own to perform this, then you will generally need to go into a branch of the bank that is guaranteeing the check to be able to cash it out fully right away. Note that since the check might be issued by a bank with no branch near you, you should have a back-up plan. Generally banks will allow you to setup a special/limited savings-only account to deposit your check, even if you don't have a checking account, so if no other option works you might try that as well. The funds availability policies are the same, but at least you'll be able to cash it generally in 10 days time (and then close the account and withdraw your money).\"" }, { "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": "58451", "title": "", "text": "\"The graphing tools within Yahoo offer a decent level of adjustment. You can easily choose start and end years, and 2 or more symbols to compare. I caution you. From Jan 1980 through Dec 2011, the S&P would have grown $1 to $29.02, (See Moneychimp) but, the index went up from 107.94 to 1257.60, growing a dollar to only $11.65. The index, and therefore the charts, do not include dividends. So long term analysis will yield false results if this isn't accounted for. EDIT - From the type of question this is, I'd suggest you might be interested in a book titled \"\"Stock Market Logic.\"\" If memory serves me, it offered up patterns like you suggest, seasonal, relations to Presidential cycle, etc. I don't judge these approaches, I just recall this book exists from seeing it about 20 years back.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "278903", "title": "", "text": "Contrary to Muro's answer which strangely shows a graph of the Fed's balance sheet and not the money supply, the supply of US dollars has never doubled in a few days. This graph from Wikipedia shows M2, which is the wider measure of money supply, to have doubled over approximately 10 years, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg The answer to whether gold has a higher chance of experiencing big devaluation has to do with forces outside anyone's control, if a big new mine of gold is discovered that could affect prices, but also if the economy turns around it could lead investors to pull out of gold and back into the stock markets. The USD, on the other hand, is under control of the policy makers at the Fed who have a dual mandate to keep inflation and unemployment low. The Fed seems to have gotten better over the last 30 years at controlling inflation and the dollar has not experienced big inflation since the 70s. Inflation, as measured by Core CPI, has been maintained at less than 4% for the last 20 years and is currently coming off record low levels below 1%." }, { "docid": "57844", "title": "", "text": "In 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at roughly 390 just prior to the Great Depression. It did not return to that level again until 25 years later in 1954. 25 years is a long time to go without any returns, especially if you are a retiree. There is no easy answer with investing. Trying to time the tops and bottoms is widely regarded as a foolhardy endeavor, but whenever you invest you expose yourself to the possibility of this scenario. The only thing I highly recommend is not to base your decision on the historical returns from 1975 to 2000 that the other answers have presented. These returns can be explained by policy changes that many are coming to understand are unsustainable. The growth of our debt, income inequality, and monetary manipulation by central banks are all reasons to be skeptical of future returns." }, { "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": "442906", "title": "", "text": "Immediately move your Roth IRA out of Edward Jones and into a discount broker like Scottrade, Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or E-Trade. Edward Jones will be charging you a large fraction of your money (probably at least 1% explicitly and maybe another 1% in hidden-ish fees like the 12b-1). Don't give away several percent of your savings every year when you can have an account for free. Places like Edward Jones are appropriate only for people who are unwilling to learn about personal finance and happy to pay dearly as a result. Move your money by contacting the new broker, then requesting that they get your money out of Edward Jones. They will be happy to do so the right way. Don't try and get the money out yourself. Continue to contribute to your Roth as long as your tax bracket is low. Saving on taxes is a critically important part of being financially wise. You can spend your contributions (not gains) out of your Roth for any reason without penalty if you want/need to. When your tax bracket is higher, look at traditional IRA's instead to minimize your current tax burden. For more accessible ways of saving, open a regular (non-tax-advantaged) brokerage account. Invest in diversified and low-cost funds. Look at the expense ratios and minimize your portfolio's total expense. Higher fee funds generally do not earn the money they take from you. Avoid all funds that have a nonzero 12b-1 fee. Generally speaking your best bet is buying index funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or their close competitors. Or buying cheap ETF's. Any discount brokerage will allow you to do this in both your Roth and regular accounts. Remember, the reason you buy funds is to get instant diversification, not because you are willing to gamble that your mutual funds will outperform the market. Head to the bogleheads forum for more specific advice about 3 fund portfolios and similar suggested investment strategies like the lazy portfolios. The folks in the forums there like to give specific advice that's not appropriate here. If you use a non-tax-advantaged account for investing, buy and sell in a tax-smart way. At the end of the year, sell your poor performing stocks or funds and use the loss as a tax write-off. Then rebalance back to a good portfolio. Or if your tax bracket is very low, sell the winners and lock in the gains at low tax rates. Try to hold things more than a year so you are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, rather than the short-term. Only when you have several million dollars, then look at making individual investments, rather than funds. In a non-tax-advantaged account owning the assets directly will help you write off losses against your taxes. But either way, it takes several million dollars to make the transactions costs of maintaining a portfolio lower than the fees a cheap mutual/index fund will charge." }, { "docid": "419180", "title": "", "text": "A market downturn is a great opportunity to pick up valuable stocks at low prices but do note that this is quite a risky proposition and requires abundant research. But again, as is mentioned in previous answers, the start of the downturn is evident only in hindsight, and it is always advisable to have a balanced/diversified portfolio, risking only what you can afford to lose. In any case, indices like Dow Jones, NASDAQ, S&P500 are calculated on the basis of only a few companies that broadly represent their individual sectors." }, { "docid": "11685", "title": "", "text": "I don't know much about finance, but maybe you should research some stocks, find one that outperformed the market during a recession or downturn and analyze it. My first guess would be to go onto finance.google click some stocks and look at the graph during a time period when there was a downturn, click the button that compares it against the s&amp;P or DOW and if the stock is higher then, yippee-ki-yay, you found something to analyze." }, { "docid": "248361", "title": "", "text": "There are the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. I believe the reports used to create them are released to the public. This could be a good place to start." }, { "docid": "508753", "title": "", "text": "Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS" }, { "docid": "511879", "title": "", "text": "2.5 years is a short period in the stock market. That means there is a significant chance it will be lower in 2.5 years, whereas it is very likely to be higher over a longer time period like 5-10 years. So if you want the funds to grow for sure then consider an online savings account, where you might earn 1-2%. If you want to do stocks anyway, but don't have any idea what fund to buy, the safest default choice is to buy an index fund that tracks the S&P 500. Vanguard's VFINX is one example." }, { "docid": "78675", "title": "", "text": "\"Just to be clear to start, beta is a statistical property. So if your beta is 0.8 over a period of time. Stock X moved on average 0.8 for a point move in the index. We might hope this property is persistent and it seems to be fairly persistent (predictable) but it doesn't have to be. Also it is important to note this is not a lag in time. Beta is a measure of the average size of a move in the stock at the same time as a move in the index. In your example both the stock and index are measured at end of day. You can say that the stock \"\"lags\"\" behind the index because it doesn't grow as quickly as the market when the market is growing, but this is not a lag in time just a lag in magnitude. People do occasionally calculate betas between a stock and lagged in time market prices, but this is not the commonly used meaning of beta. This might actually be a more useful measure as then you could bet on the future of the stock given what happened today in the market, but these \"\"betas\"\" tend to be much more unstable than the synchronized version and hard to trade on. When you calculated beta you choose a time scale, in this case daily. So if your calculation is on a day-to-day basis then you have only tested the relationship on a day-to-day basis not, for instance, on a week-to-week basis. Now day-to-day and week-to-week betas are often related and are generally reasonably close but they do not have to be. There can be longer term effects only picked up on the longer scale. Stock X could day-to-day with a (average) beta of 1 to the stock market, but could have even a negative beta year-to-year with the market if the stock is counter-cyclical to longer scale trends on the market. So beta can change with the time scale used in the calculation.\"" }, { "docid": "159166", "title": "", "text": "The methodology for divisor changes is based on splits and composition changes. Dividends are ignored by the index. Side note - this is why, in my opinion, that any discussion of the Dow's change over a long term becomes meaningless. Ignoring even a 2% per year dividend has a significant impact over many decades. The divisor can be found at http://wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-djiahourly.html" }, { "docid": "12879", "title": "", "text": "\"You can see how much of a percentage the S&amp;P 500 is of the GDP over the past 10 years in this handy graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=oCZ When the stock market was doing poorly (2009) it was only 0.06% of GDP. When it's doing well (now) it's 0.12% of the GDP. It's also not useful to directly compare percentages like you're doing. Just because one averages 6% growth and one averages 3% growth, that doesn't mean that the 6% one will take over. It doesn't take much of a correction to wipe out decades of S&amp;P vs GDP growth. You might also be interested in knowing that this ratio is similar to the \"\"Buffet Indicator\"\", how Warren Buffet decides if stocks are overvalued as a whole: https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2017/04/04/market-cap-to-gdp-an-updated-look-at-the-buffett-valuation-indicator\"" }, { "docid": "210470", "title": "", "text": "\"Yes, there is a very good Return vs Risk graph put out at riskgrades.com. Look at it soon, because it will be unavailable after 6-30-11. The RA (return analysis) graph is what I think you are looking for. The first graph shown is an \"\"Average Return\"\", which I was told was for a 3 year period. Three period returns of 3, 6 and 12 months, are also available. You can specify the ticker symbols of funds or stocks you want a display of. For funds, the return includes price and distributions (total return), but only price movement for stocks - per site webmaster. I've used the graphs for a few years, since Forbes identified it as a \"\"Best of the Web\"\" site. Initially, I found numerous problems with some of the data and was able to work with the webmaster to correct them. Lately though, they have NOT been correcting problems that I bring to their attention. For example, try the symbols MUTHX, EDITX, AWSHX and you'll see that the Risk Grades on the graphs are seriously in error, and compress the graph results and cause overwriting and poor readability. If anyone knows of a similar product, I'd like to know about it. Thanks, George\"" }, { "docid": "80156", "title": "", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow." }, { "docid": "72054", "title": "", "text": "\"Dividend-paying securities generally have predictable cash flows. A telecom, electric or gas utility is a great example. They collect a fairly predictable amount of money and sells goods at a fairly predictable or even regulated markup. It is easy for these companies to pay a consistent dividend since the business is \"\"sticky\"\" and insulated by cyclical factors. More cyclic investments like the Dow Jones Industrial Average, Gold, etc are more exposed to the crests and troughs of the economy. They swing with the economy, although not always on the same cycle. The DJIA is a basket of 30 large industrial stocks. Gold is a commodity that spikes when people are faced with uncertainty. The \"\"Alpha\"\" and \"\"Beta\"\" of a stock will give you some idea of the general behavior of a stock against the entire market, when the market is trending up and down respectively.\"" }, { "docid": "45174", "title": "", "text": "Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!" }, { "docid": "520963", "title": "", "text": "\"Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An \"\"Index Fund\"\" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These \"\"index funds\"\" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me.\"" }, { "docid": "11633", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming you can understand and emotionally handle the volatility, a good indeed fund would be wise. These are low fee funds which perform as well as our better than most managed investments and since they don't cost as much, they typically out perform most other investment vehicles. The S&P 500 is traded as SPDR. Another option is the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which trades as DIA. Average returns over the long term are 10-12%. If you expect to need the money in the short term (5-8 years), you have a non trivial chance of needing to pull the money out when the market is down, so if that's unacceptable to you, choose something with a guarantee. If you're terrified of losing money in the short term, don't think you can handle waiting for the market to go up, especially when every news caster is crying hysterically that the End of Economic Life on Earth is here, then consider a CD at your bank. CDs return much lower rates (around 2% right now) but do not go down in value ever. However, you need to lock your money into them for months to years at a time. Some people might tell you to buy a bond fund. That's horrible advice. Bond funds get lower returns AND have no guarantee that you won't lose money on them, unlike aactual bonds. As you're new to investing, I encourage you to read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Gramm.\"" }, { "docid": "469599", "title": "", "text": "The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return." } ]

[ { "docid": "21103", "title": "", "text": "\"Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a \"\"hypothetical $10,000 investment\"\" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "57844", "title": "", "text": "In 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average peaked at roughly 390 just prior to the Great Depression. It did not return to that level again until 25 years later in 1954. 25 years is a long time to go without any returns, especially if you are a retiree. There is no easy answer with investing. Trying to time the tops and bottoms is widely regarded as a foolhardy endeavor, but whenever you invest you expose yourself to the possibility of this scenario. The only thing I highly recommend is not to base your decision on the historical returns from 1975 to 2000 that the other answers have presented. These returns can be explained by policy changes that many are coming to understand are unsustainable. The growth of our debt, income inequality, and monetary manipulation by central banks are all reasons to be skeptical of future returns." }, { "docid": "80156", "title": "", "text": "Gold's value starts with the fact that its supply is steady and by nature it's durable. In other words, the amount of gold traded each year (The Supply and Demand) is small relative to the existing total stock. This acting as a bit of a throttle on its value, as does the high cost of mining. Mines will have yields that control whether it's profitable to run them. A mine may have a $600/oz production cost, in which case it's clear they should run full speed now with gold at $1200, but if it were below $650 or so, it may not be worth it. It also has a history that goes back millennia, it's valued because it always was. John Maynard Keynes referred to gold as an archaic relic and I tend to agree. You are right, the topic is controversial. For short periods, gold will provide a decent hedge, but no better than other financial instruments. We are now in an odd time, where the stock market is generally flat to where it was 10 years ago, and both cash or most commodities were a better choice. Look at sufficiently long periods of time, and gold fails. In my history, I graduated college in 1984, and in the summer of 82 played in the commodities market. Gold peaked at $850 or so. Now it's $1200. 50% over 30 years is hardly a storehouse of value now, is it? Yet, I recall Aug 25, 1987 when the Dow peaked at 2750. No, I didn't call the top. But I did talk to a friend advising that I ignore the short term, at 25 with little invested, I only concerned myself with long term plans. The Dow crashed from there, but even today just over 18,000 the return has averaged 7.07% plus dividends. A lengthy tangent, but important to understand. A gold fan will be able to produce his own observation, citing that some percent of one's holding in gold, adjusted to maintain a balanced allocation would create more positive returns than I claim. For a large enough portfolio that's otherwise well diversified, this may be true, just not something I choose to invest in. Last - if you wish to buy gold, avoid the hard metal. GLD trades as 1/10 oz of gold and has a tiny commission as it trades like a stock. The buy/sell on a 1oz gold piece will cost you 4-6%. That's no way to invest. Update - 29 years after that lunch in 1987, the Dow was at 18448, a return of 6.78% CAGR plus dividends. Another 6 years since this question was asked and Gold hasn't moved, $1175, and 6 years' worth of fees, 2.4% if you buy the GLD ETF. From the '82 high of $850 to now (34 years), the return has a CAGR of .96%/yr or .56% after fees. To be fair, I picked a relative high, that $850. But I did the same choosing the pre-crash 2750 high on the Dow." }, { "docid": "494233", "title": "", "text": "December, 5, 2011 ( 03:00pm ) :- All markets including stocks &amp; Commodities are moving towards upward direction on the strong cues comes on the expiring today. Little bit Volatile comes over the settlement in MCX today. Gold &amp; Silver contracts are expiring today. Dow Jones Industrial average future up by80 points from the optimism coming from the European Countries. All European Countries getting financial aid from the side of IMF which is provided through the European Central Bank. Nifty have strong resistance at 5150 levels under this level short term trend still bearish side. Gold have strong support at Rs 28960 above this trend bullish under this trend down for short term." }, { "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": "582650", "title": "", "text": "As of this moment the DOW 30 is up 6.92% Year-to-date. Of the 30 stocks in the index 6 are in negative territory for the year. And of the 6 in negative territory 3 are farther below 0 than the average is above 0. The investors in those 3 stocks (Boeing, Goldman Sachs and Nike) would look at this year so far as a disaster. Individual stocks can move in opposite directions from the index." }, { "docid": "386162", "title": "", "text": "I agree with @Turukawa that the x-axes need to be the same to make a direct comparison. However, the graphs you linked make me think of introductory calculus: If you time averaged plots, speculative investments (gold, housing) seem to have many large concave up time periods and the dow jones has many concave down sections. Using the concavity test: If the first derivative tells you about the rate of change, the second derivative tells you about the rate of change of rate of change. Remember back to Physics 101: 1st derivative is velocity & second derivative is acceleration. It would be interesting to have the same time scales for your plots & compare these accelerations between the two. I suspect the more volatile investments would have larger (in magnitude) accelerations during boom/bust cycles than less speculative investments." }, { "docid": "510163", "title": "", "text": "\"The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company was established in 1902 as a private company. It first raised public funds around 1903 but had a limited shareholder base. By around 1929, it was reported as being tradeable as an OTC (over-the-counter) stock but it's likely that shares were traded well before this. On 14 Jan 1946, the stock was listed on NYSE. On 26 Sep 1962 it became a constituent of the the S&P 500 index. On 9 Aug 1976 it became a constituent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In 2002, the company's name changed to 3M Co. It appears that the data on Crunchbase's \"\"IPO Date\"\" is wrong on this one. However, there are several companies that appear to do an \"\"IPO\"\" and have trading prices prior. This is quite typical of early-stage biotech companies that trade OTC prior to a major exchange listing and \"\"IPO\"\". An example of an IPO happening after a company became publicly tradeable is NASDAQ:IMRN (Immuron). They had an \"\"IPO\"\" on Nasdaq on 9 Jun 2017, yet they had been trading as an OTC/Pink Sheet stock for months prior. They also have been listed in Australia since 30 Apr 1999. http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/activity.aspx?tab=pricings&month=2017-06 Another example is NASDAQ:GNTY (Guaranty Banchshares Inc) which had an \"\"IPO\"\" and NASDAQ listing in May 2017. This was a Nasdaq stock in 1998, went OTC/pink sheet stock in 2005. It has been paying regular dividends since that time. Clearly the word \"\"Initial\"\" is subjective! http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/activity.aspx?tab=pricings&month=2017-05\"" }, { "docid": "450949", "title": "", "text": "\"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"" }, { "docid": "469599", "title": "", "text": "The Investopedia article you linked to is a good start. Its key takeaway is that you should always consider risk-adjusted return when evaluating your portfolio. In general, investors seeking a higher level of return must face a higher likelihood of taking a loss (risk). Different types of stocks (large vs small; international vs US; different industry sectors) have different levels of historical risk and return. Not to mention stocks vs bonds or other financial instruments... So, it's key to make an apples-to-apples comparison against an appropriate benchmark. A benchmark will tell you how your portfolio is doing versus a comparable portfolio. An index, such as the S&P 500, is often used, because it tells you how your portfolio is doing compared against simply passively investing in a diversified basket of securities. First, I would start with analyzing your portfolio to understand its asset allocation. You can use a tool like the Morningstar X-Ray to do this. You may be happy with the asset allocation, or this tool may inform you to adjust your portfolio to meet your long-term goals. The next step will be to choose a benchmark. Given that you are investing primarily in non-US securities, you may want to pick a globally diversified index such as the Dow Jones Global Index. Depending on the region and stock characteristics you are investing in, you may want to pick a more specialized index, such as the ones listed here in this WSJ list. With your benchmark set, you can then see how your portfolio's returns compare to the index over time. IRR and ROI are helpful metrics in general, especially for corporate finance, but the comparison-based approach gives you a better picture of your portfolio's performance. You can still calculate your personal IRR, and make sure to include factors such as tax treatment and investment expenses that may not be fully reflected by just looking at benchmarks. Also, you can calculate the metrics listed in the Investopedia article, such as the Sharpe ratio, to give you another view on the risk-adjusted return." }, { "docid": "11685", "title": "", "text": "I don't know much about finance, but maybe you should research some stocks, find one that outperformed the market during a recession or downturn and analyze it. My first guess would be to go onto finance.google click some stocks and look at the graph during a time period when there was a downturn, click the button that compares it against the s&amp;P or DOW and if the stock is higher then, yippee-ki-yay, you found something to analyze." }, { "docid": "248361", "title": "", "text": "There are the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. I believe the reports used to create them are released to the public. This could be a good place to start." }, { "docid": "570247", "title": "", "text": "Barclays offers an iPath ETN (not quite an ETF), DJP, which tracks the total return of the Dow Jones-AIG Commodity Index." }, { "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." }, { "docid": "511879", "title": "", "text": "2.5 years is a short period in the stock market. That means there is a significant chance it will be lower in 2.5 years, whereas it is very likely to be higher over a longer time period like 5-10 years. So if you want the funds to grow for sure then consider an online savings account, where you might earn 1-2%. If you want to do stocks anyway, but don't have any idea what fund to buy, the safest default choice is to buy an index fund that tracks the S&P 500. Vanguard's VFINX is one example." }, { "docid": "419180", "title": "", "text": "A market downturn is a great opportunity to pick up valuable stocks at low prices but do note that this is quite a risky proposition and requires abundant research. But again, as is mentioned in previous answers, the start of the downturn is evident only in hindsight, and it is always advisable to have a balanced/diversified portfolio, risking only what you can afford to lose. In any case, indices like Dow Jones, NASDAQ, S&P500 are calculated on the basis of only a few companies that broadly represent their individual sectors." }, { "docid": "319434", "title": "", "text": "Your logic is not wrong. But the risk is more significant than you seem to assume. Essentially you are proposing taking a 2.6% loan to buy stocks. Is that a good strategy? On average, probably. But if your stocks crash you might have significant liabilities. In 1929, the Dow Jones dropped 89%. In 1989, >30%. In 2008-9, 54%. This is a huge risk if this is money that you owe in taxes. If you operate the same system year after year the chance of it going horribly wrong increases." }, { "docid": "568624", "title": "", "text": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks." }, { "docid": "218947", "title": "", "text": "\"Here is, from Yahoo Finance, the S&P 500 over the last ~60 years (logarithmic scale): The behavior since ~2000 has been weird, by historical standards. And it's very easy, looking at that graph, to say \"\"yes! I would have made so much money had I invested in March '09!\"\". Of course, back in March '09, it wasn't so clear that was the bottom. But, yes, over the last 10 years or so, you could have made more money by adopting a rule that you'll accumulate cash in a FDIC (or similar) insured savings account, and dump it into an S&P index fund/ETF when the index is n% off its high. Of course, if you look at the rest of the chart, that strategy looks a lot less promising. Start in the early 80's, and you'd have held cash until the crash in 2000. Except for the recent weirdness, the general trend in the S&P 500 (and stock markets in general) has been upward. In other words, to a first-order approximation, the S&P 500 is always at an all-time high. That's just the general trend.\"" }, { "docid": "464277", "title": "", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "413832", "title": "", "text": "Cheapest is one thing. You can absolutely shop in the market and find the lowest possible price. I can think of three places to shop, each with an up and downside. I would think that what you really mean is the best price for the service. Just like shopping for a car you have to decide what you need vs what is nice to have. Decide what features you need. Do you need long distance? Do you need caller id? Do you need to call technophobic friends and family? Find out what you have available to you through associations. Often schools, work or a club you belong to have deals for service discounts. Look at your insurance plan or AAA membership for the crazy discounts. Decide what kinds of service will meet your needs. Buy the cheapest service. DO NOT ENTER A CONTRACT. Even if the price is slightly lower. At least not at first. If you try out your service and love it, enter the contract if and only if the total price measured over length of the contract is less. With cell phones especially, it is absolutely possible to save money buying month to month vs a 2 year contract. Even when you buy equipment for full price up front. Ask for the bare minimum service from your local phone company. Because phone companies are often regulated monopolies, they might have a bare minimum level of service they are required to offer by the municipality. They probably don't advertise it or push it, but it might exist if you call and ask. You basically get a dial tone. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/local-local-toll-and-long-distance-calling Price is dictated by a government board, so you don't have to worry about shopping for deals Not the cheapest possible solution This is popular plan the youth oriented market, but more and more people of all demographics are using their cellphones only. There are downsides (911, etc) and shopping for the best cell phone plan can be a full time job, but it does offer a way to save money by simply not having home phone service. Might be possible to score organizational discounts through work or groups you belong to Cellphones require batteries, and can go dead (not good for emergencies) Voice over Internet Protocol uses your existing Internet connection. You can buy a cheap regular phone and plug it into the VOIP box and use it like any other phone. VOIP can either be very inexpensive for all the features you get, or just plain inexpensive. There are providers who sell a monthly service, yearly service or no service plan at all. (You buy a device and get service as long as you own the device.) Taxes to the government are always due, so nothing is ever free. Sometimes the provider is just computer software, so a minimalist would like that. Emergency services are more reliable than cellular (if you follow extra steps to set them up) Can be confusing to buy. Some require contracts, some special devices, some require a bit of technical know how to setup. Be sure to evaluate the total cost of ownership when comparing prices" } ]

[ { "docid": "249791", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;Privatization and outsourcing of knowledge is much cheaper than in-house economies of scale... wait, what? It's a short-term gain ... problem with short term things is that when you do them repeatedly year-after-year, you pile-up a long-term loss (which eventually comes home to roost). &gt;When this grand experiment is proven to not be the panacea of the business world's quest for cost reduction, we'll all look back and laugh at how silly these guys were. You mean like the housing bubble, when *everyone* was getting rich \"\"flipping\"\" their homes back and forth between each other. &gt;It's like saying it's cheaper for a family of four to eat out three times a day, seven times a week (at restaurant that serves food with quality comparable to home cooking) than it is to cook at home. We all know home cooked meals are more cost effective unless you're eating the bottom of the barrel fast food, even then, externalities of health and well being make the savings questionable. Well said.\"" }, { "docid": "247709", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer: No. Longer answer: The only reason to move would be to get out of the condo and into a SFR of equal cost because condos can be quite difficult to sell and you don't really want that potential burden later on. Moving is expensive though and you can't afford to spend more when you are already living on the financial edge. Speaking of living on the edge, that's a recipe for disaster. I make, ratio-wise, a similar sort of income. Even accounting for the generous college tuition, you should be able to save at least $20K per year...at a bare minimum. And if you were careful, I figure you should be able to save $40K/year. You need to figure out where you are dumping all of your money and cut WAY back on spending and focus entirely on saving money. 1) Stop eating out. Make your own meals. I average about $2 per meal per person - no junk food. Eating out is 6 to 30 times as expensive as making meals at home. Do the math: $10 * 2 people * number of times you eat out per week * 52 ($1,040 per year for each time/week!) vs $2 * 2 people * 21 (3 meals per day) * 52 ($4,368 per year for both of you...maximum). Now I know some meals are more expensive to prepare, but the math is not unrealistic - I spend about $140 per month on groceries and make the bulk of my own food. Eating out is sticker shock for me. The food I prepare is nutritionally balanced and complete. Now I'm not a complete health-nut. I love the occasional deep-fried treat or hamburger, but those are \"\"once every couple of months\"\" sort of things, which makes them special. 2) Stop going to Starbucks or wherever you habitually go. It takes fuel to get there. It's also expensive when you get there. Bring your own drink if you are hanging out with friends. 3) Drop golf. Or whatever expensive sport you are sinking money into. Invest in some cheap running clothes and focus on cardio-based workouts. Heart health is more important than anything else. If you can't live without your sport, then find an alternate sport that is \"\"equal\"\"-ish in challenge but a ton cheaper to play. For example, if you like playing golf, play discgolf instead (most cities have courses) - there's no cost beyond a couple of discs and the challenge is still there. 4) Drop entertainment. Movies at the theater are expensive. Drop your cable subscription (you are getting financially raped for $1,500/year). Get a Netflix subscription and find shows via free online streaming services. Buy some dominoes, card games, and a couple of classic board games. Keep entertainment simple and cheap. 5) Drop your cell phone's data plan. Republic Wireless is the only decent cellular provider and even their $12/month plan is living a luxury lifestyle. If you spend more than $10/month/person for phone service, you are spending too much. 6) Stop driving everywhere. Gas is expensive. Cars are expensive. If you have more than two cars, sell the extras. If your car is worth more than $20,000, sell it and get something cheaper. 7) Stop drinking alcohol. Alcohol impairs mental functions, is addictive, smells terrible, and is ridiculously expensive. There's no actual need to consume it either. By the way, don't go and make major financial changes without the wife's sign-off. Finances are the #1 reason for divorce. So get her \"\"OK\"\" on this stuff. Hopefully you already knew that. The above are just some common financial pitfalls where people sink thousands and thousand of dollars and gain nothing. You can still have a full and complete life with just a minimum of the above. There is no excuse for living on the edge financially. Your story is one I'm going to share with those who give me the same excuse because they are \"\"poor\"\". You are \"\"I want to punch you in the face\"\" wealthy and you spend every last penny because you think that's how money works. You are wrong. One final piece of advice: Find a financial adviser. It is clear to me that you've been managing money wrong your whole life. A financial adviser will look at your situation and help you far more than someone on the Internet ever can. If you attend a church, many churches have the excellent Crown Financial Ministries program available which teaches sound financial management principles. The education system doesn't show people how to manage money, but that's not an excuse either. Once you dig yourself out of the financial hole you've dug for yourself, you can pass the knowledge on how to correctly manage money onto other people.\"" }, { "docid": "27495", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it." }, { "docid": "456772", "title": "", "text": "\"I have actual scientifically rigorous sources on my side. You have... \"\"power line blog dot com\"\". https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/04/the-economics-of-energy-generation-are-changing-more-metrics-favor-solar-wind/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/report-draft-of-doe-baseload-study-says-wind-solar-dont-threaten-reliability/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/energy-departments-contentious-baseload-study-is-out/ Natural gas is pretty much better in every way but one than coal. It's much cheaper, far better for the environment (in both extraction and greenhouse gases), easier to extract, more energy dense, easier to control the production of energy in response to demand with... its only loss to coal is ease of storage. It doesn't matter if we have a lot of it if using alternative options is a superior option. Just because we have it doesn't mean it's worth extracting or using.\"" }, { "docid": "567095", "title": "", "text": "\"I actually think McDonald's tastes fine, since my expectations are in line with the price of the meal. I don't expect it to taste as good as a more expensive restaurant's offerings, nor do I expect it to taste as good as a home cooked meal, as both have higher costs than McDonald's. To clarify, in the case of home cooked meals, the cost is time. At the point at which I have made the decision to grab McDonald's for dinner, the alternatives were too costly. I, like many Americans, am busy, and am unable or unwilling to find the time to prepare a proper meal on numerous occasions. At other times, my decision is different, as some days I have more time, or more money, to go with something \"\"better\"\". I don't think McDonald's can really objectively be considered \"\"barely qualifying as food,\"\" as food tastes and health decisions are subjective. One decent (but not definitive) proxy, as is often the case with subjective matters, is popularity. McDonald's is very popular. While this isn't an argument in and of itself, it should remind you that taste in food is, indeed, a subjective opinion. I just plain don't understand why so many people *despise* McDonald's. It's a fast food joint that some people like and some don't-- who cares? I don't particularly like vegan food, but I don't take pleasure in seeing a vegan restaurant shut down. As an aside, vegan cookies are bizarrely delicious. If folks want to talk about, say, McDonald's business practices, labor relations, or environmental record, that's another story. But \"\"McDonald's tastes like shit LOLOLolo\"\"-type comments typically result in a storm of upvotes that I have trouble understanding. Finally, it seems to be overlooked that McDonald's (and many other American fast food companies) are suuuuper different abroad when compared to restaurants at home. In America, eating McDonald's is very much a quick and dirty affair, but it widely varies from country to country, with (from what I can tell) American McDonald's setting something of a *floor* as far as McDonald's dining experiences go.\"" }, { "docid": "453487", "title": "", "text": "GMA would call back the notes provided they are able to find alternative funds at cheaper rates. Yes you are right the interest rates are at all time low ... however not one would lend me a Billion dollars, people have to trust me that I would be able to return the funds ... even if I am willing to pay 50% interest per annum, I would not get the funds ... Similarly GMA notes are unsecured notes, not backed by any assets. Further there is history to it ... in short today GMA is not in a position to get a cheaper funds available to them ... the day they get it, they will call in the older notes and maybe issues new notes or get some other form of funding" }, { "docid": "442241", "title": "", "text": "A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money." }, { "docid": "55407", "title": "", "text": "According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer." }, { "docid": "72960", "title": "", "text": "\"What you should do is called \"\"re-characterization\"\". See the instructions for form 8606 for details (that is also the form to use to report the incident). See example 3: You made a contribution to a Roth IRA and later recharacterized part or all of it to a traditional IRA. Report the nondeductible traditional IRA portion, if any, on Form 8606, Part I. If you did not recharacterize the entire contribution, do not report the remaining Roth IRA portion of the contribution on Form 8606. Attach a statement to your return explaining the recharacterization. If the recharacterization occurred in 2012, include the amount transferred from the Roth IRA on Form 1040, line 15a; Form 1040A, line 11a; or Form 1040NR, line 16a. If the recharacterization occurred in 2013, report the amount transferred only in the attached statement, and not on your 2012 or 2013 tax return. You re-characterize it back to traditional IRA contribution, which will not be deductible. You then convert it back to a Roth IRA. Basically you end up at exactly the same place, except that if you already had some gains on that amount - you'll have to pay tax on them now (for the conversion, since because of the re-characterization, it will now be gains in a traditional IRA). You should of course contact your broker to do the re characterization (reassigning of the amount and its gains from a Roth IRA account to a traditional IRA account).\"" }, { "docid": "396540", "title": "", "text": "There are deals out there which allow refinancing up to 125% of appraised value so long as you have a solid payment history. You need to research banks in your area working with HARP funded mortgages. An alternate method is to find a bank that will finance 80% of the current value at 4% and the rest as a HELOC. The rate will be higher on the equity line, but the average rate will be better and you can pay the line off faster." }, { "docid": "116992", "title": "", "text": "\"There are several tactics you might employ to help the situation. You have two options, one is to increase your income, the other is to reduce your expenditure. Paying off debt will also help but that may not apply to you. Most people find it easier to reduce expenditure, so I will explain that first of all. Then make sure you track your actual expenditure agains the budget, check it daily and make sure it is accurate, if you spend some money you didn't budget for then mark that down and make sure you budget for it going forward. Most people are surprised at how much they are actually spending, especially on trivial things like coffee, lunch at work etc. You will then find you can start to reduce this expenditure, maybe by bringing lunch to work, skipping coffee every other day etc. By doing a budget you can reduce your expenditure and hopefully have some money left over to save - put a line in your budget marked savings (ideally on the day you get paid so you don't spend it)! If you ned to save $x by Y date then work out how much that works out in a month and put that into your budget, if you haven't got enough spare to do that then onto stage 2 With regards to increasing income, the obvious way is to do some overtime at work - can you do that? Alternatively you can get a part-time job, maybe a hobby that pays money? I personally enjoy building web-sites as a hobby and I get about $20 a month from advertising on those, it's not much but it adds up over time. Finally how to actually save, what methods are there? Lots of options here, personally I buy shares with my savings, making sure I pick stocks that are currently cheap - this is quite risky and may not suit you but it works for me as I don't sell the shares until I actually need the money. Other options are regular savings accounts that pay a bonus after you've had the money in for (usually) 12 months etc. They tend to pay a bonus at the end so you are incentivised to not touch your cash but you can get it out if you really need it. You can also work out how much \"\"spare\"\" cash you have monthly and then give yourself an \"\"allowance\"\" each month that you can spend on impulse items, but make sure you stick to that. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "271459", "title": "", "text": "\"Why isn't the above the business model of a loan? It is the model of some types of loans. It's called a \"\"Line of credit\"\" (LOC). I have two them, one for my business, and one for me personally. (Why does this question exist:) Is it an 30-year loan or a 10-year loan? As you mentioned, the concept of term doesn't exist for these types of loans. As long as I pay the interest and don't go over the max of my credit limit, I could keep the money indefinitely. Due to this, lines of credit almost always have a variable interest rate. (In the US they are tied to the Prime rate.) (Why does this question exist:) If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or toward the principal? Again, this concept also doesn't exist with a LOC. There is a minimum payment that you must make each month, but there is nothing that prevents you from making the minimum payment and then immediately taking the exact payment you made back out again. Of course this increases the total you owe, and eventually you would hit your maximum credit limit and would no longer be able to take the full payment back out. Years ago I maxed out my business line and didn't have enough money to make the payment so my bank was nice enough to raise my limit for me (so I could take enough out to make the payment), but if I did that multiple times I'm sure they would have eventually said no. Fortunately my clients finally paid me and I paid off the line, but I still keep the LOC today even though I rarely use it. By the way, beyond traditional LOCs, they also exist in other forms, both secured and unsecured. A common secured product in the US is a 2nd lien holder to a home (the first being the mortgage), called a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit). Many banks also offer unsecured LOCs on a checking account which they sometimes call \"\"overdraft protection\"\". Update: based on a comment to this answer, I now realize that the full question now becomes something similar to: Given that the Line of Credit loan model exists, why aren't all loans like this? or, refining it further: What advantages do other loan types have over the Line of Credit model, specifically finite term loans? A main advantage of a term loan over a line of credit is that the bank knows when they will get the money back. If every loan a bank made was a LOC product, and no one ever paid it back, then they'd eventually run out of money. That's obviously an oversimplification but the principle (pun intended) holds. To prevent this the bank would have to call due the loan, and doing this usually leaves customers angry. Years ago I had a business LOC with a bank that discontinued their business LOC product, and called every customer's loan due. I had a balance and they offered to convert it to a 5 year term loan, which I did, but I was so mad at them that I switched banks and paid off the term loan shortly after. Another advantage of a term loan is it forces the customer to be a little more responsible. Lines of credit can be dangerous for those that misuse it because if the amount owed is driven up due to bad behavior, there is nothing to force the bad behavior to stop. A perfect example of this can be found with governments. Some governments borrow money until their line of credit is used up, and then they just keep increasing their credit limit. There is no incentive for the officials in charge of the government to stop doing this because it isn't even their money. If those lines of credits were converted to term loans, the government would be forced to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses, which is the only way to get out of debt. Some other advantages of term loans over a LOC:\"" }, { "docid": "30623", "title": "", "text": "From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future." }, { "docid": "323934", "title": "", "text": "\"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"" }, { "docid": "543619", "title": "", "text": "I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split." }, { "docid": "586572", "title": "", "text": "\"Are “auto income generators” scams or alternative investment channels? I wouldn't go so far as to say that these are scams so much as grossly exaggerated marketing claims. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is. Auto auto income generator, for example, hosts a site that you can use to produce revenue from ads. In order to get enough traffic to generate the amount of income they promise you have to put in a lot of work, hardly making it \"\"automatic.\"\" I can't find anything on auto bit coin builder, however. They promise to pay out an outrageously high fixed-return with vague descriptions about \"\"investments.\"\" This is purely speculation since there is not very much information about this small site, but it may be a \"\"pyramid\"\" or \"\"Ponzi\"\" scheme. They promise a return higher than traditional investments, offer extra incentives for referrals, and offer a list of excuses for why funds may be pending even though the transfer happens \"\"INSTANTLY\"\" on their end. The fact that they only deal in crpytocurrency may also be an attempt to remain anonymous.\"" }, { "docid": "201856", "title": "", "text": "\"This is going to vary from insurer to insurer, and likely year to year. Typically an insurer will set what it calls the guaranteed rate of return for whole life policies and will allow you to take loans against the cash value of your policy at some adjustment to that rate. Also typically you pay the interest back to yourself less some small administrative fee. Some insurers have whole life policies called something along the lines of an \"\"accelerated cash value\"\" policy or a \"\"high early cash value\"\" policy, stick to these ones. The commission structure is less favorable to the agent/broker but much more of your premium is recognized as cash value earlier. The benefit (for lack of a better word) to taking a loan against your own cash value over taking a loan from a bank is the severely reduced process. There's no underwriting for your loan like there would be from a bank. If you're laid off maybe you can't get a loan from a bank but you can scoop some money out of your policy on a loan basis or alternatively you can just surrender the policy and take the accrued cash value. Many people will poo-poo the value of whole life, but fact of the matter is your underwriting status can change in the course of your life and it's possible that in the future you won't be able to buy any life insurance. There's nothing wrong with having something permanent to supplement your larger term policies. Personally, I view diversification as having money in a lot of different places. This strategy is probably not as efficient as it could, but I don't like the idea of having all my eggs in one basket. I have cash in a lock box at home, cash savings, CDs, a personal loan portfolio, bitcoins, index funds, individual stocks, commodity etfs, and bond funds spread in traditional 401(k), ROTH IRA and regular taxable accounts spread out to 6 different institutions. I don't personally own any whole life, but I'll probably buy a small policy before my next 6-month birthday; I might as well put some money there too. All of this is to say, do not put all of your money in a whole life policy, and do not buy all of your life insurance needs via whole life.\"" }, { "docid": "157480", "title": "", "text": "As you said, the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient. Same for the generation after that. From a financial standpoint, there isn't a steadfast theory that supports when to buy the technology. It comes down to primarily personal issues. As far as I know, Musk's claims about the cost were relating to a traditional slate roof, not a traditional asphalt shingle roof. I can't recall if he explicitly said one way or the other, but I have yet to see any math that supports a comparison to asphalt shingles. If you look at all of the demos and marketing material, it's comparisons to various styles of tile roofing, which is already more expensive than asphalt shingles. Do you feel it's worth it to invest now, or do you think it would be more worth it to invest later when the costs are lower? A new roof will last 10-20 years (if not longer...I'm not a roof expert). Do you need a new roof yet? Are your electricity bills high enough that the cost of going solar will offset it enough? Can you sell unused power back to your power company? I could go on, but I think you get the point. It's entirely a personal decision, and not one that will have a definitive answer. If you keep waiting to make a purchase because you're worried that the next generation will be cheaper and more efficient, then you're never going to make the purchase." }, { "docid": "124892", "title": "", "text": "I like Applebees and IHOP, but I don't go often anymore because I find I can make the same food much cheaper at home. The pressure to cut costs also stem from lack of increase in pay year after year. Even though the news crows about unemployment decreasing, I don't get the sense that pay is necessarily increasing significantly." } ]

[ { "docid": "450742", "title": "", "text": "\"How low you can reduce your costs does depend on your calling pattern. How many minutes per month you call locally; call long distance; call internationally; and how many minutes you receive calls for. If all these figures are low, you can be better off with a pay-per-minute service, if any of the outbound figures are high then you could consider a flat-rate \"\"unlimited\"\" service. So that's the first step, determine your needs: don't pay for what you don't need. For example, I barely use a \"\"landline\"\" voip phone any more. But it is still useful for incoming calls, and for 911 service. So I use a prepaid pay-per-minute VOIP company, that has a flat rate (< $2/mo) for the incoming number, an add-on fee for the 911 service (80c/mo), and per-minute costs for outgoing calls (1c/min or less to US, Canada, western Europe). I use my own Obitalk box (under $50 to buy). There is a bit of setup and learning needed, but the end result means my \"\"landline\"\" bill is usually under $4/mo (no other taxes or fees). Companies in this BYOD (bring your own device) space in the US/Canada include (in alphabetic order), Anveo, Callcentric, Callwithus, Futurenine, Localphone, Voip.ms and many others. A good discussion forum to learn more about them is the VOIP forum at DSLreports (although it can be a bit technical). There is also a reviews section at that site. If your usage is higher (you make lots of calls to a variety of numbers), most of these companies, and others, have flat-rate bundles, probably similar to what you have now. Comparing them depends on your usage pattern, so again that's the first thing to consider, then you know what to shop for. If you need features like voicemail or voicemail transcription, be sure to look at whether you need an expensive bundle with it in, or whether you're better off paying for that seperately. If your outbound calls are to a limited number of numbers, such as relatives far away or internationally, consider getting a similar VOIP system for those relatives. Most VOIP companies have free \"\"on network\"\" calls between their customers, regardless of the country they are in. So your most common, and most lengthy calls, could be free. The Obitalk boxes (ATA's: analog telephone adapters) have an advantage here, if you install them in yours and relatives houses. As well as allowing you to use any of the \"\"bring your own device\"\" VOIP companies like those listed above, they have their own Obitalk network allowing free calls between their boxes, and also to/from their iOS and Android apps. There are other ATA's from other companies (Cisco have well-known models), and other ways to make free calls between them, so Obitalk isn't the only option. I mentioned above I pay for the incoming number. Not every supplier has incoming numbers available in every area, you need to check this. Some can port-in (transfer in) your existing number, if you are attached to it, but not all can, so again check. You can also get incoming numbers in other areas or countries, that ring on your home line (without forwarding costs). This means you can have a number near a cluster of relatives, who can call you with a local call. Doesn't directly save you money (each number has a monthly fee) but could save you having to call them back!\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "211942", "title": "", "text": "\"Since the other answers have covered mutual funds/ETFs/stocks/combination, some other alternatives I like - though like everything else, they involve risk: Example of how these other \"\"saving methods\"\" can be quite effective: about ten years ago, I bought a 25lb bag of quinoa at $19 a bag. At the same company, quinoa is now over $132 for a 25lb bag (590%+ increase vs. the S&P 500s 73%+ increase over the same time period). Who knows what it will cost in ten years. Either way, working directly with the farmers, or planting it myself, may become even cheaper in the future, plus learning how to keep and store the seeds for the next season.\"" }, { "docid": "463230", "title": "", "text": "\"There's too much here for one question. So no answer can possibly be comprehensive. I think little of gold for the long term. I go to MoneyChimp and see what inflation did from 1974 till now. $1 to $4.74. So $200 inflates to $950 or so. Gold bested that, but hardly stayed ahead in a real way. The stock market blew that number away. And buying gold anytime around the 1980 runup would still leave you behind inflation. As far as housing goes, I have a theory. Take median income, 25% of a month's pay each month. Input it as the payment at the going 30yr fixed rate mortgage. Income rises a bit faster than inflation over time, so that line is nicely curved slightly upward (give or take) but as interest rates vary, that same payment buys you far more or less mortgage. When you graph this, you find the bubble in User210's graph almost non-existent. At 12% (the rate in '85 or so) $1000/mo buys you $97K in mortgage, but at 5%, $186K. So over the 20 years from '85 to 2005, there's a gain created simply by the fact that money was cheaper. No mania, no bubble (not at the median, anyway) just the interest rate effect. Over the same period, inflation totaled 87%. So the same guy just keeping up with inflation in his pay could then afford a house that was 3.5X the price 20 years prior. I'm no rocket scientist, but I see few articles ever discussing housing from this angle. To close my post here, consider that homes have grown in size, 1.5%/yr on average. So the median new home quoted is actually 1/3 greater in size in 2005 than in '85. These factors all need to be normalized out of that crazy Schiller-type* graph. In the end, I believe the median home will always tightly correlate to the \"\"one week income as payment.\"\" *I refer here to the work of professor Robert Schiller partner of the Case-Schiller index of home prices which bears his name.\"" }, { "docid": "329497", "title": "", "text": "You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there." }, { "docid": "586572", "title": "", "text": "\"Are “auto income generators” scams or alternative investment channels? I wouldn't go so far as to say that these are scams so much as grossly exaggerated marketing claims. If it sounds too good to be true then it usually is. Auto auto income generator, for example, hosts a site that you can use to produce revenue from ads. In order to get enough traffic to generate the amount of income they promise you have to put in a lot of work, hardly making it \"\"automatic.\"\" I can't find anything on auto bit coin builder, however. They promise to pay out an outrageously high fixed-return with vague descriptions about \"\"investments.\"\" This is purely speculation since there is not very much information about this small site, but it may be a \"\"pyramid\"\" or \"\"Ponzi\"\" scheme. They promise a return higher than traditional investments, offer extra incentives for referrals, and offer a list of excuses for why funds may be pending even though the transfer happens \"\"INSTANTLY\"\" on their end. The fact that they only deal in crpytocurrency may also be an attempt to remain anonymous.\"" }, { "docid": "543619", "title": "", "text": "I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split." }, { "docid": "54828", "title": "", "text": "\"I tried to get a friend to buy something at Monoprice - it was even cheaper there than Amazon. However Monoprice insist you create yet another account with yet another password before they will let you make a purchase. Needless to say he said \"\"screw that\"\" and made the purchase at Amazon. It is amazing just how bad many of the alternatives are to Amazon, especially when the competition is Amazon where the user already has an account. An article - [The $300m button](http://www.uie.com/articles/three_hund_million_button/) - is excellent highlighting the same issue. Jakob Nielsen also has a [good report on current ecommerce sites](http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ecommerce.html) - note how great the failure rate is. Back to Monoprice, I did contact them to explain that they were losing sales, explained why, pointed to the $300m button article etc. They then explained back to me that I needed to create an account on their site before making a purchase. Duh.\"" }, { "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": "59029", "title": "", "text": "As an alternative to investing you'll find at least some banks eg. Rakuten that will give you preferential interest rates(still 0.1% though) just for opening a free brokering account. As this is still your individual savings account your money is as safe as it was before opening your account. I certainly wouldn't buy to hold any stock or fund that is linked to the Nikkei right now. Income stocks outside of the 225 may be safer, but you'd still need to buy enough of them that their individual results don't affect your bottom line." }, { "docid": "311136", "title": "", "text": "\"Visa Electron should be usable in any ATM (and shop) that accepts Visa, especially if the ATM also contains the \"\"Plus\"\" logo. However, if it's (for example) the card issued by La Banque Postale (in French) there are quite low withdrawal and spending limits. These limits are over a period of the most recent seven days, so it can take a while before you can withdraw more. So maybe not suitable to transfer a significant amount to your CZK account. As an alternative to finding an ATM that might have a fee, you can maybe use it to buy something small, then get cashback from stores that offer that. As it's a debit card, it needs to check the balance in real-time, so there are reports of it being often declined if it can't get a fast response from the home bank. In other words, make sure you have an alternative.\"" }, { "docid": "72960", "title": "", "text": "\"What you should do is called \"\"re-characterization\"\". See the instructions for form 8606 for details (that is also the form to use to report the incident). See example 3: You made a contribution to a Roth IRA and later recharacterized part or all of it to a traditional IRA. Report the nondeductible traditional IRA portion, if any, on Form 8606, Part I. If you did not recharacterize the entire contribution, do not report the remaining Roth IRA portion of the contribution on Form 8606. Attach a statement to your return explaining the recharacterization. If the recharacterization occurred in 2012, include the amount transferred from the Roth IRA on Form 1040, line 15a; Form 1040A, line 11a; or Form 1040NR, line 16a. If the recharacterization occurred in 2013, report the amount transferred only in the attached statement, and not on your 2012 or 2013 tax return. You re-characterize it back to traditional IRA contribution, which will not be deductible. You then convert it back to a Roth IRA. Basically you end up at exactly the same place, except that if you already had some gains on that amount - you'll have to pay tax on them now (for the conversion, since because of the re-characterization, it will now be gains in a traditional IRA). You should of course contact your broker to do the re characterization (reassigning of the amount and its gains from a Roth IRA account to a traditional IRA account).\"" }, { "docid": "442241", "title": "", "text": "A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money." }, { "docid": "446213", "title": "", "text": "It's really not DRM, it was never intended to be. It was their one lowest price model, to offer something more affordable before the model 3 release. No other models are affected, and the expected market size was so small it was cheaper than designing one more lower capacity battery. Everyone knew what they were buying, and can upgrade to the next model up at any time. I don't see how this is possibly a bad thing, that model is already discontinued as well and this will never be a thing again. Remember the alternative is for those few owners to just have a 60kwh battery, and not be able to do this, this was not possible on any other models." }, { "docid": "259282", "title": "", "text": "It depends primarily on how the Canadian economy is designed i.e export oriented or import oriented. If you look at this, it shows more or less equal amount of exports and imports. For the specific case of Canada, the exports would become costlier, because of a costlier dollar, but at the same time imports would become cheaper. This is only a generalization, not specific goodswise, which would require a more detailed ananlysis. But investors have a different dilemma. Canadian investors would find it cheaper to invest abroad so may channel their investments abroad because they may find it costlier to invest in Canada. While foreign investors would find it costlier to invest in Canada and may wait for later or invest somehwre else. Then government may try to boost up investment and start lowering the interest rates, if it sees the rising dollar as detrimental for the Canadian economy and investments flowing abroad instead of Canada. But what would be the final outcome of the whole rigmarole is little difficult to predict, because something is arriving and something is departing and above all goverment is doing something or is going to do. But the basic gist is Canadian exporters will be sad and Canadian importers will be happy, but vice versa for foreign investors intending to invest in Canada." }, { "docid": "271459", "title": "", "text": "\"Why isn't the above the business model of a loan? It is the model of some types of loans. It's called a \"\"Line of credit\"\" (LOC). I have two them, one for my business, and one for me personally. (Why does this question exist:) Is it an 30-year loan or a 10-year loan? As you mentioned, the concept of term doesn't exist for these types of loans. As long as I pay the interest and don't go over the max of my credit limit, I could keep the money indefinitely. Due to this, lines of credit almost always have a variable interest rate. (In the US they are tied to the Prime rate.) (Why does this question exist:) If you pay extra, do you want the extra to go toward the interest or toward the principal? Again, this concept also doesn't exist with a LOC. There is a minimum payment that you must make each month, but there is nothing that prevents you from making the minimum payment and then immediately taking the exact payment you made back out again. Of course this increases the total you owe, and eventually you would hit your maximum credit limit and would no longer be able to take the full payment back out. Years ago I maxed out my business line and didn't have enough money to make the payment so my bank was nice enough to raise my limit for me (so I could take enough out to make the payment), but if I did that multiple times I'm sure they would have eventually said no. Fortunately my clients finally paid me and I paid off the line, but I still keep the LOC today even though I rarely use it. By the way, beyond traditional LOCs, they also exist in other forms, both secured and unsecured. A common secured product in the US is a 2nd lien holder to a home (the first being the mortgage), called a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit). Many banks also offer unsecured LOCs on a checking account which they sometimes call \"\"overdraft protection\"\". Update: based on a comment to this answer, I now realize that the full question now becomes something similar to: Given that the Line of Credit loan model exists, why aren't all loans like this? or, refining it further: What advantages do other loan types have over the Line of Credit model, specifically finite term loans? A main advantage of a term loan over a line of credit is that the bank knows when they will get the money back. If every loan a bank made was a LOC product, and no one ever paid it back, then they'd eventually run out of money. That's obviously an oversimplification but the principle (pun intended) holds. To prevent this the bank would have to call due the loan, and doing this usually leaves customers angry. Years ago I had a business LOC with a bank that discontinued their business LOC product, and called every customer's loan due. I had a balance and they offered to convert it to a 5 year term loan, which I did, but I was so mad at them that I switched banks and paid off the term loan shortly after. Another advantage of a term loan is it forces the customer to be a little more responsible. Lines of credit can be dangerous for those that misuse it because if the amount owed is driven up due to bad behavior, there is nothing to force the bad behavior to stop. A perfect example of this can be found with governments. Some governments borrow money until their line of credit is used up, and then they just keep increasing their credit limit. There is no incentive for the officials in charge of the government to stop doing this because it isn't even their money. If those lines of credits were converted to term loans, the government would be forced to increase revenue and/or decrease expenses, which is the only way to get out of debt. Some other advantages of term loans over a LOC:\"" }, { "docid": "529017", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; IT will never make Home Depot or Lowes profit because they don't sell IT. It is a cost center. Really? If I buy from their on-line store, who should be credited for making the sale and profit? The Sales department? The Marketing Department? Or the IT department that provided the system, web-design and artwork to make the sale? What's next? Research and Development is a cost center too? Maybe we should outsource them to cheaper researchers? How about the Buyers and procurement department? Does any sales somehow connected to their effort? **Top management wants you to believe that everyone is \"\"Cost Center\"\" except management. Ask them, and they will tell you that even the customer service and sale people on in the store are also \"\"cost center\"\".** If anything, IT and only IT reduces costs, reduce the manpower, reduce the overhead and bring more sales opportunities with the new digital frontier for sales. If you don't think so, then, fine! Hire the cheapest IT people, or, why even bother? Stop any new development in the IT department.\"" }, { "docid": "92442", "title": "", "text": "Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth." }, { "docid": "124196", "title": "", "text": "\"[\"\"Lights in the Tunnel\"\"](http://www.thelightsinthetunnel.com/) dose a good job in coming up with an alternative economic system for when robots and machine replace most of the work done by humans.. Though personally I think that as technology evolves from factory sized machines which support employment to much smaller cheaper machines such as desktop 3D Printers or Lab-on-a-chip devices, then the need for factories and workers will disapear, replaced by a second industrial revolution - [“industrialization of the home”](http://nutrinium.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/normal-0-false-false-false-en-gb-x-none.html), maybe..\"" }, { "docid": "30623", "title": "", "text": "From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future." }, { "docid": "297892", "title": "", "text": "Used in our daily activities goes out the house and acquire different things which our family wants. But since the economy isn't doing well these days, thinking about the High dividend stocks is important. One factor that must be taken into account could be the expense. If you're accustomed with buying what you see without even looking at the package price, you better customize the way you live your life. Perseverance is incredibly essential for you to be able to find the high dividend stocks. If possible, you need to seek a cheaper alternative on the pricey items you used to purchase. Be patient and save cash!" } ]

[ { "docid": "143100", "title": "", "text": "Try to use VOIP service provider or web enabled conference calling services in your home phone. Now a days communication technologies have seen a boost as well as integration of different formats and platforms which easily reduces phone bills of a user. Service such as UberConference, Skype, Webinar etc enables audio/video as well as web conferencing feature for their user. Service tiers such as free plans, basic plans and business plans allow user to use these conference calling services per their need. Have a look at any such service and use it as an alternative of your home phone line." } ]

[ { "docid": "406872", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"" }, { "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": "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": "414737", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not need to inform your employer of your additional activity, but it is your responsibility not to work for more than 48 hours per week as long as you are an employee. So if you are working 38 hours for your employer, you may not work for yourself for more than 10 hours. It is, however, not so easy in practice to draw the line between work and a hobby, as long as you are not being paid by the hour. The main reason to present your employer with an addition to your work contract is to make it legally very clear that he holds no intentions to claim copyright to your work. He may attempt to do something funky like claim your home computer is, in fact, a work computer because you used it once a month to work from home, and your work contract may contain a paragraph that all work performed on a work computer results in copyright ownership for your employer. I have no idea how likely this is in practice, but this is the reason I know is commonly given as legal advice to have a contract. So the normal contract you present your employer with says: In order to earn user contribution money from a website, you need to register as a sole proprietor (Gewerbeanmeldung) and pay trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and sales tax (Umsatzsteuer, alternatively you claim small trade exception, Kleingewerbe), which also makes a tax return mandatory. I would guess, however, (and this is not legal advice in any way, just my guess), that a couple of contributions towards server cost in a strictly non-profit endeavor is not commercial (\"\"gewerblich\"\") at all but private, in the same way that you may write an invoice to someone you sold your old bike to, or a kid may get paid to mow someone's lawn. Based on that guess, my non-legal-advice recommendation is to take the contributions and do nothing else, as long as the amount is nowhere near breaking even if you count your work input.\"" }, { "docid": "495062", "title": "", "text": "As others mentioned, I am not sure what you mean by stating that your 401K was rolled over to a money market account. Assuming that it was rolled over to an IRA account, you can roll it over to another IRA account with a financial institution of your choice (either a brokerage or a bank.) Alternatively, you can withdraw these funds, but since you are under 59.5 years old, you would have to cough up 10% penalty to IRS for this unqualified withdrawal. Therefore, I would strongly recommend for you to wait till you reach this eligible age. Other qualified (penalty-free) withdrawals are: purchase of the first home, college tuition, medical insurance premiums for unemployed individuals, disability, and medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income. I would assume that your 401K was a Traditional 401K account (before tax contributions), and not ROTH 401K, so yo would also have to pay taxes upon withdrawing funds whether you do it now or after you are 59.5 y.o." }, { "docid": "540816", "title": "", "text": "\"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first. The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another \"\"at the same time\"\" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. \"\"Fred sells it five cents cheaper!\"\" \"\"Then why aren't you buying from him?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper.\"\" \"\"Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. \"\"Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested...\"\" \"\"Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more.\"\" \"\"Three. Sam looks really interested.\"\" \"\"Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie.\"\" \"\"Done.\"\" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home.\"" }, { "docid": "211942", "title": "", "text": "\"Since the other answers have covered mutual funds/ETFs/stocks/combination, some other alternatives I like - though like everything else, they involve risk: Example of how these other \"\"saving methods\"\" can be quite effective: about ten years ago, I bought a 25lb bag of quinoa at $19 a bag. At the same company, quinoa is now over $132 for a 25lb bag (590%+ increase vs. the S&P 500s 73%+ increase over the same time period). Who knows what it will cost in ten years. Either way, working directly with the farmers, or planting it myself, may become even cheaper in the future, plus learning how to keep and store the seeds for the next season.\"" }, { "docid": "158147", "title": "", "text": "Before, you just had to make cymbals - now, you have to make cheaper, better cymbals than a 400 year old cymbal manufacturer. Oh, and you now have to get into musical instrument stores (who might have deals already in place allowing the other company to be their sole supplier of cymbals). And, then, when you do find someone willing to sell your small line of cymbals, you have to compete with a company who mass-produces dozens and dozens of different lines (and who can offer the store owner much better discounts and freebies than you can)... Ask Amazon Auctions what it's like to be a second mover..." }, { "docid": "561446", "title": "", "text": "no, it doesn't mean it's right at all. They probably sell them at a premium now boasting that they are 'all American made' New coke all over again? I live in a little town on the south west of Scotland called Kilmarnock. One of our last major manufacturers is in the final phases to pull out after being there since 1820. The name? Johnnie Walker - you may have heard of them. Another major manufacturing company left a skeleton crew a good number of years ago - there are still steam engines that were built there running in Africa even today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Barclay_Sons_%26_Co. And one last company http://www.masseyferguson.com/EMEA/GB/about/242.aspx Do you know what ultimately killed these 3 companies in Kilmarnock? The workers, or at least - or - to be more precise the Unions. Not that I'm against unions - at least not the realistic ones. Johnnie Walker is the last large manufacturing giant to move out of Kilmarnock. A town that is now pretty much a ghost town with an incompetent council. All were high paid jobs - I'm sure we would all love $25 an hour to press an on off button and watch an emergency stop, how many do that here for less? Why should the above have been getting more? Because they could, they were so used to the high life (when things were good) that they would not settle for anything else, ultimately running the companies out of the area when machines and lesser workforce were more than capable. Diageo (JW owner) is pulling the line back to a generic factory in another Scottish location, cheaper to run, more modern and lesser wages. I'm glad to see manufacturing coming back and having worked in customer relations for a large conglomerate I think we are on the brink of change. It's still up hill and you'll be talking to Indians by the name of Frank for a few years yet to come - but it's impacting their bottom line and at the end of the day -- THAT is all that matters. It's the massive conglomerates we need to worry about - they'll destroy people and tradition to pad their wallets. Oh, yeah... tradition - Cadbury - just came to mind. Why do we let them get so big? when just one slice and thousands of people and products are off the shelves for good ... even when they are profitable? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/taxpayers-braced-for-1bn-blow-from-rbs-scandals-8002175.html http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2196043/RBS-blasted-3-2m-golden-hello-paid-new-retail-chief-Ross-McEwan.html It does sicken me that when austerity bites - the people at the top who cream the riches during the good never seem to suck up the piss during the bad. But going back on topic, if you are not willing to do the job for $15 dollars an hour that's fair enough -- but I'm sure there are still plenty of other Americans that would love that job and they know it." }, { "docid": "92442", "title": "", "text": "Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth." }, { "docid": "27495", "title": "", "text": "There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it." }, { "docid": "116992", "title": "", "text": "\"There are several tactics you might employ to help the situation. You have two options, one is to increase your income, the other is to reduce your expenditure. Paying off debt will also help but that may not apply to you. Most people find it easier to reduce expenditure, so I will explain that first of all. Then make sure you track your actual expenditure agains the budget, check it daily and make sure it is accurate, if you spend some money you didn't budget for then mark that down and make sure you budget for it going forward. Most people are surprised at how much they are actually spending, especially on trivial things like coffee, lunch at work etc. You will then find you can start to reduce this expenditure, maybe by bringing lunch to work, skipping coffee every other day etc. By doing a budget you can reduce your expenditure and hopefully have some money left over to save - put a line in your budget marked savings (ideally on the day you get paid so you don't spend it)! If you ned to save $x by Y date then work out how much that works out in a month and put that into your budget, if you haven't got enough spare to do that then onto stage 2 With regards to increasing income, the obvious way is to do some overtime at work - can you do that? Alternatively you can get a part-time job, maybe a hobby that pays money? I personally enjoy building web-sites as a hobby and I get about $20 a month from advertising on those, it's not much but it adds up over time. Finally how to actually save, what methods are there? Lots of options here, personally I buy shares with my savings, making sure I pick stocks that are currently cheap - this is quite risky and may not suit you but it works for me as I don't sell the shares until I actually need the money. Other options are regular savings accounts that pay a bonus after you've had the money in for (usually) 12 months etc. They tend to pay a bonus at the end so you are incentivised to not touch your cash but you can get it out if you really need it. You can also work out how much \"\"spare\"\" cash you have monthly and then give yourself an \"\"allowance\"\" each month that you can spend on impulse items, but make sure you stick to that. Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "204288", "title": "", "text": "I am not aware of a version of Interac available in the U.S., but there are alternative ways to receive money: Cheque. The problem with mailed cheques is that they take time to deliver, and time to clear. If you ship your wares before the cheque has cleared and the cheque is bad, you're out the merchandise. COD. How this works is you place a COD charge on your item at the post office in the amount you charge the customer. The post office delivers the package on the other end when the customer pays. The post office pays you at the time you send the package. There is a fee for this, talk to your local post office or visit the Canada Post website. Money order. Have your U.S. customers send an International Money Order, not a Domestic Money Order. Domestic money orders can only be cashed at a U.S. post office. The problem here is again delivery time, and verifying your customer sent an International Money Order. It can be a pain to have to send back a Domestic Money Order to a customer explaining what they have to do to pay you, even more painful if you don't catch the error before shipping your wares. Credit Card. There are a number of companies offering credit card processing that are much cheaper than a bank. PayPal, Square, and Intuit are three such companies offering these services. After I did my investigations I found Square to be the best deal for me. Please do your own research on these companies (and banks!) and find out which one makes the most sense for you. Some transaction companies may forbid the processing of payment for e-cig materials as they my be classed as tobacco." }, { "docid": "247709", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer: No. Longer answer: The only reason to move would be to get out of the condo and into a SFR of equal cost because condos can be quite difficult to sell and you don't really want that potential burden later on. Moving is expensive though and you can't afford to spend more when you are already living on the financial edge. Speaking of living on the edge, that's a recipe for disaster. I make, ratio-wise, a similar sort of income. Even accounting for the generous college tuition, you should be able to save at least $20K per year...at a bare minimum. And if you were careful, I figure you should be able to save $40K/year. You need to figure out where you are dumping all of your money and cut WAY back on spending and focus entirely on saving money. 1) Stop eating out. Make your own meals. I average about $2 per meal per person - no junk food. Eating out is 6 to 30 times as expensive as making meals at home. Do the math: $10 * 2 people * number of times you eat out per week * 52 ($1,040 per year for each time/week!) vs $2 * 2 people * 21 (3 meals per day) * 52 ($4,368 per year for both of you...maximum). Now I know some meals are more expensive to prepare, but the math is not unrealistic - I spend about $140 per month on groceries and make the bulk of my own food. Eating out is sticker shock for me. The food I prepare is nutritionally balanced and complete. Now I'm not a complete health-nut. I love the occasional deep-fried treat or hamburger, but those are \"\"once every couple of months\"\" sort of things, which makes them special. 2) Stop going to Starbucks or wherever you habitually go. It takes fuel to get there. It's also expensive when you get there. Bring your own drink if you are hanging out with friends. 3) Drop golf. Or whatever expensive sport you are sinking money into. Invest in some cheap running clothes and focus on cardio-based workouts. Heart health is more important than anything else. If you can't live without your sport, then find an alternate sport that is \"\"equal\"\"-ish in challenge but a ton cheaper to play. For example, if you like playing golf, play discgolf instead (most cities have courses) - there's no cost beyond a couple of discs and the challenge is still there. 4) Drop entertainment. Movies at the theater are expensive. Drop your cable subscription (you are getting financially raped for $1,500/year). Get a Netflix subscription and find shows via free online streaming services. Buy some dominoes, card games, and a couple of classic board games. Keep entertainment simple and cheap. 5) Drop your cell phone's data plan. Republic Wireless is the only decent cellular provider and even their $12/month plan is living a luxury lifestyle. If you spend more than $10/month/person for phone service, you are spending too much. 6) Stop driving everywhere. Gas is expensive. Cars are expensive. If you have more than two cars, sell the extras. If your car is worth more than $20,000, sell it and get something cheaper. 7) Stop drinking alcohol. Alcohol impairs mental functions, is addictive, smells terrible, and is ridiculously expensive. There's no actual need to consume it either. By the way, don't go and make major financial changes without the wife's sign-off. Finances are the #1 reason for divorce. So get her \"\"OK\"\" on this stuff. Hopefully you already knew that. The above are just some common financial pitfalls where people sink thousands and thousand of dollars and gain nothing. You can still have a full and complete life with just a minimum of the above. There is no excuse for living on the edge financially. Your story is one I'm going to share with those who give me the same excuse because they are \"\"poor\"\". You are \"\"I want to punch you in the face\"\" wealthy and you spend every last penny because you think that's how money works. You are wrong. One final piece of advice: Find a financial adviser. It is clear to me that you've been managing money wrong your whole life. A financial adviser will look at your situation and help you far more than someone on the Internet ever can. If you attend a church, many churches have the excellent Crown Financial Ministries program available which teaches sound financial management principles. The education system doesn't show people how to manage money, but that's not an excuse either. Once you dig yourself out of the financial hole you've dug for yourself, you can pass the knowledge on how to correctly manage money onto other people.\"" }, { "docid": "256983", "title": "", "text": "\"Here are the top hitters in my (recent) experience, in highest-first order: Child Care By far the biggest potential cost is childcare, whether this be a full-time nursery/kindergarten, child minder, live-in Nanny/Au-pair or just paying a baby sitter when parents need a night off. This needs careful thought. In London, full-time nursery school (6 months to 4 years old) varies from 500 UKP to 2000 UKP per month, and the amount you pay does not guarantee the quality of the care/education. If you have relatives nearby, these costs can likely be reduced, but you'd really need to pay the relatives somehow - meals, bling, holidays, a new bathroom, etc. Loss of Earnings Whether the mother goes on maternity leave, or the father gives up his job to be a 'house husband', the family income is going to be affected for a period of time. You can plan for this by researching what government or company benefits the mother or father will get and for how long. I suggest dividing this amount evenly across the whole period that the stay-at-home parent will be off, rather than trying to calculate \"\"2 months' full pay, 2 months' half pay, 2 month's no pay\"\", because if you get into a pattern of high spending in the first two months, what will happen for the next 4 months. You also need to consider short-notice time off work when anybody is poorly. I suggest reserving some of your vacation time for unexpectedly-have-to-look-after-the-family time. When children start daycare/nursery, the germs cross-pollinate, so you get some really nasty strains of coughs, colds, diarrhoea and 'flu in the house, which could cause the primary carer to be unable to do their caring without (your) help. Bigger Car If you can't get a baby seat into your car because it doesn't have the proper fittings or doesn't have rear seats, you'll likely need to change your car. There are plenty of cars that are bigger in terms of people space without being more expensive, but it'll cost to change. Insurances If you have health insurance (e.g. US), you're going to have a proportional increase. Call your provider for details. Bear in mind that children have more illnesses and accidents than middle-age parents, so it could be a shock. Some parents take out life insurance to provide for their childrens' financial future in case of the worst happening. This can be around 50 UKP/65 USD per month, but it all depends on the lump sum you're insuring for. Equipment As a new parent, you think you need an incredible amount of equipment such as Changing Station, Cot/Crib, 'Moses Basket', Carry-Chair, Car Seat, Travel Cot/Crib, Feeding Chair, Changing Mat, Baby Bath, etc. When you bring a new baby home, you really only need a wipe-clean changing mat and somewhere safe for baby to sleep. You can buy anything else as you need it. In fact, it gives you more perspective to go shopping once you've had the baby. Whatever you buy, keep the receipt and don't open it until you need it. Much easier to take back the, e.g. portable baby bottle warmer, if you didn't open it because baby is breast-fed. When they become bigger (2 months plus), you'll need a Cot/Crib. Invest in an adjustable cot-bed - it's a bit larger than a regular Cot/Crib and the floor lowers as they get bigger, so you only need one for the first 2.5 to 3 years. Food If baby will have formula, there are baby-milk formula calculators on the web - in summary one box of quality formula is ~9 UKP/12 USD and this lasts around 4 days if fully formula-fed. Once they're onto food, you need to factor in baby food options. You can either make your own by side-lining some of the adult meal and blending it, then putting it into individual plastic containers. This takes effort, so not everyone has the energy. Alternatively, you're going to have to buy baby food in jars, packets or boxes for 3 meals a day and there'll be little snacks in-between. Baby snacks are strangely expensive, so recommend fruit. Budget for 5 UKP/7 USD per day until they're eating a small portion of the family meal. Clothes A new baby really only needs vests, all-in-one suits, blankets for warmth. You can go mad buying cute outfits, but they get limited use as a new baby grows really quickly. If you've a lot of family/friends and you have a tradition of some kind of \"\"good luck\"\" party ('baby shower'), then you can find that you end up being given lots of things. If you don't know the sex of the baby, ask people to get you a gift receipt if possible such that you don't get blue clothes for a girl. It may not bother you, but its' a pain when people say \"\"Katie is a strange name for a boy?\"\" just because your little girl has blue booties. Child-proofing Your Home This really does not have to cost a lot. Some people go mad putting soft corners on all the hard edges, covering the electrical sockets and generally sanitizing the whole home. It's up to you, but if there's a room full of sharp/poisonous things like a kitchen or utility room, you might want to put a 15 UKP/20 USD baby gate on that room. Putting the breakable or sharp things up high, or stored away in the attic is a sensible move too.\"" }, { "docid": "30623", "title": "", "text": "From my understanding by paying your bills more than 5 days late will not lead you into bankruptcy or stop you from getting a new loan in the future, however it may mean that lenders offer you credit at a higher interest rate. This of course would not help you as you are already struggling with your finances. However, no matter how bad you think things might be for you financially, there are always things you can do to improve your situation. Set a Budget The first thing you must do is to set a budget. List down all sources of income you receive each month, including any allowances. Then list all your sources of expenses and spending. List all your bills such as rent, telephone, electricity, car maintenance, credit card and other loans. Keep a diary for a month for all your discretionary spending - including coffees, lunches, and other odd bits and ends. You can also talk with your existing lenders and come to some agreement on reducing you interest rates on your debts and the repayments. But remember any reduction in repayments may increase your repayment period and the total interest you have to pay in the long term. If you need help setting up your budget here are some links to resources you can download to help you get started: Once you set up your budget you want your total income to be more than your total expenses. If it isn't you will be getting further and further behind each month. Some things you can do are to increase your income - get a job/second job, sell some unwanted items, or start a small home business. Some things you can do to reduce your expenses - make coffees and lunches at home before going out and buying these, pay off higher interest debts first, consolidate all your debts into a lower interest rate loan, reduce discretionary spending to an absolute minimum, cancel all unnecessary services, etc. Debt Consolidation In regards to a Debt Consolidation for your existing personal loans and credit cards into a single lower interest rate loan can be a good idea, but there are some pitfalls you should consider. Manly, if you are taking out a loan with a lower interest rate but a longer term to pay it off, you may end up paying less in monthly repayments but will end up paying more interest in the long run. If you do take this course of action try to keep your term to no longer than your current debt's terms, and try to keep your repayments as high as possible to pay the debt off as soon as possible and reduce any interest you have to pay. Again be wary of the fine print and read the PDS of any products you are thinking of getting. Refer to ASIC - Money Smart website for more valuable information you should consider before taking out any debt consolidation. Assistance improving your skills and getting a higher paid job If you are finding it hard to get a job, especially one that pays a bit more, look into your options of doing a course and improving your skills. There is plenty of assistance available for those wanting to improve their skills in order to improve their chances of getting a better job. Check out Centrelink's website for more information on Payments for students and trainees. Other Action You Can Take If you are finding that the repayments are really getting out of hand and no one will help you with any debt consolidation or reducing your interest rates on your debts, as a last resort you can apply for a Part 9 debt agreement. But be very careful as this is an alternative to bankruptcy, and like bankruptcy a debt agreement will appear on your credit file for seven years and your name will be listed on the National Personal Insolvency Index forever. Further Assistance and Help If you have trouble reading any PDS, or want further information or help regarding any issues I have raised or any other part of your financial situation you can contact Centrelink's Financial Information Service. They provide a free and confidential service that provides education and information on financial and lifestyle issues to all Australians. Learn how to manage your money so you can get out of your debt and can lead a much more comfortable and less stressful life into the future." }, { "docid": "55407", "title": "", "text": "According to pages 6 & 7 of the instructions for form 1040 in 2009 AMT was only temporarily patched for the year. Congress can't politically afford to drastically cut AMT exemptions by 30 to 40%, and may even retroactively change it, if it isn't passed by the end of the year (despite the constitution forbidding ex post facto laws) : What’s New for 2009 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount increased. The AMT exemption amount has increased to $46,700 ($70,950 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $35,475 if married filing separately)... What’s New for 2010 ... Alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amount. The AMT exemption amount is scheduled to decrease to $33,750 ($45,000 if married filing jointly or a qualifying widow(er); $22,500 if married filing separately). So, if you are married, and several regular tax deductions push your income below the AMT exemption amount of $45,000, it's quite possible you would be required to pay AMT, even if you didn't last year. There is a work sheet for AMT in the instructions for line 43, but the IRS also provides an AMT calculator. According to page 146 (E-8) of the instructions for form 1040 AMT is paid as: the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your taxable income (Form 1040, line 43). It is also the smallest amount you are allowed to report as your alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI) on Form 6251, line 29. If the [AMT calculation] is larger than your taxable income would otherwise be, enter the amount from column (c) on Form 1040, line 43 [or ...] Form 6251, line 29. As always, congress finds ways to further complicate things by making a few credits and losses deductible against the absolute minimum you're expected to pay taxes on, making the AMT a misnomer." }, { "docid": "107980", "title": "", "text": "\"Have you tried registering for social housing? Rent prices through social housing are typically cheaper than on the free market. You might be able to jump to the front of the waiting list due to your wife's unexpected handicap. See this link: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/huurwoning/sociale-huurwoning-huren To more directly answer your question: I don't think there is any limitation on how your family needs to get the money to lend it to you. They could lookinto a personal loan (persoonlijke lening), but they might not be able to borrow enough. The Netherlands does not have a direct equivalent of a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC), but your family could potentially get a second mortgage (tweede hypotheek) on their house in order to get the money to lend you. However, be aware that this is a very risky endeavor. There are lots of unknowns that could leave you unable to pay or your family unable to pay. Receiving the money as a gift with the intention to repay it but no formal agreement in place may also leave you and your family in a difficult position. I would encourage you to visit a mortgage advisor together to discuss scenarios. Note that one possible option you may want to explore is a \"\"family mortgage\"\" (familiehypotheek). This is just a fancy way of saying that your family can act as (one of) your mortgage lenders. You and your family must comply with all relevant rules and regulations to do this, including them charging you interest and them reporting certain things to the tax authorities. Vereniging Eigen Huis has details on how to set such a mortgage up and how to manage the required reporting: https://www.eigenhuis.nl/webwinkel/hypotheekservice/familiehypotheek/\"" }, { "docid": "328863", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming you file state tax returns, you shouldn't buy Basic. Ever. Your choice is probably between the \"\"Premier\"\" version and the \"\"Business and Home\"\" version. Price difference is insignificant (I have a comparison on my blog, including short descriptions as to who might find each version useful the most). The prices have gone down significantly, since when I wrote the article, its cheaper now.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "139047", "title": "", "text": "I have in the last few years purchased several used cars from dealers. They have handled it two different ways. They accepted a small check ~$1,000 now, and then gave me three business days to bring the rest as a cashiers check. They also insisted that I submit a application for credit, in case I needed a loan. They accepted a personal check on the spot. Ask them before you drive to the dealer. Of course they would love you to get a loan from them." } ]

[ { "docid": "301833", "title": "", "text": "\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \"\"cashed\"\"1 – see the rules on \"\"Crossed\"\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \"\"Cheque cashing shops\"\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\"" }, { "docid": "437182", "title": "", "text": "We aim to keep 6 months of expenses. The rationale is that its enough time to recover from most serious illnesses (that you can recover from) or a redundancy or pay for a large unexpected problem not covered by the insurance (e.g. the boiler dying). It also gives us enough time to reorganise finances if needed. For example we could get out of contracts (like mobile phones, sky TV), sell the car, and maybe even find a cheaper house if needed in that time. It will take a good chunk of time to build up that amount and it's worth considering how many commitments you have (kids, wife, mortgage, car...) as the fewer you have the less you need. If you have fewer commitments you can be comfortable with much less contingency. When I lived in rented accomodation and didn't run a car or have many possessions, I just maintained enough cash to cover my bills for about 6 weeks, this would give me enough time to find another job, and if I didn't get one I could always crash round a friend's house." }, { "docid": "285033", "title": "", "text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"" }, { "docid": "516631", "title": "", "text": "I might be missing something, but I always understood that leasing is about managing cash-flow in a business. You have a fixed monthly out-going as opposed to an up-front payment. My accountant (here in Germany) recommended: pay cash, take a loan (often the manufactures offer good rates) or lease - in that order. The leasing company has to raise the cash from somewhere and they don't want to make a loss on the deal. They will probably know better than I how to manage that and will therefore be calculating in the projected resale value at the end of the leasing period. I can't see how an electric car would make any difference here. These people are probably better informed about the resale value of any type of car than I am. My feeling is to buy using a loan from the manufacturer. The rates are often good and I have also got good deals on insurance as a part of that package. Here in Germany the sales tax (VAT) can be immediately claimed back in full when the loan deal is signed." }, { "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": "440806", "title": "", "text": "In many (most?) cases, luxury cars are leased rather than purchased, so the payments on even an expensive car might not be as high as you'd expect. For simplicity, take a $100,000 car. If you were to buy that in cash or do a standard five-year auto loan, that would be incredibly expensive for all but the wealthiest of people. But a lease is different. When you lease a car, you are financing the car's depreciation over the lease term. So, let's suppose that you're signing up for a three-year lease. The car manufacturer will make an estimate of what that car will be worth when you bring it back in three years (this is called the residual value). If this number is $80,000, that means the lessee is only financing the $20,000 difference between the car's price and its residual value after three years - rather than the full $100,000 MSRP. At the end of the lease, he or she just turns the car back in. Luxury cars are actually especially amenable to leasing because they have excellent brand power - just because of the name on the hood, there are many people who would be happy to pay a lot for a three-year-old Mercedes or BMW. With a mid- or low-range car, the brand is not as powerful and used cars consequentially have a lower residual value (as a percentage of the MSRP) than luxury cars. So, don't look at an $80,000 luxury car and assume that the owner has paying for the entire $80,000." }, { "docid": "16626", "title": "", "text": "\"Here's a number-crunching example of how the \"\"Zero interest rate\"\" offer is misleading. Suppose the offer is that a car \"\"costs $24,000.00 with zero percent financing over 24 months\"\" or as an alternative, \"\"$3,000.00 off for cash\"\". Ignore the hype: the quoted prices and the quoted interest rates. Look at what really happens to two people who take advantage of the two offers, One person hands over $21,000.00 cash, and leaves with the new car. The second promises to make 24 payments of $1000.00, one a month, starting in one month's time, and also leaves with the same make and model new car. The two people have received exactly the same benefit, so the two payment schemes must have the same value. A mortgage program will tell you that paying off a $21,000.00 loan by making 24 monthly payments of $1000.00 requires an interest rate of 1.10% a month, or an effective annual rate of 14.03%.\"" }, { "docid": "529123", "title": "", "text": "\"There's two scenarios: the loan accrues interest on the remaining balance, or the total interest was computed ahead of time and your payments were averaged over x years so your payments are always the same. The second scenarios is better for the bank, so guess what you probably have... In the first scenario, I would pay it off to avoid paying interest. (Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the cash available for something else, and you don't mind paying interest) In the second case, you're going to pay \"\"interest over x years\"\" as computed when you bought the car no matter how quickly you pay it off, so take your time. (If you pay it earlier, it's like paying interest that would not have actually accrued, since you're paying it off faster than necessary) If you pay it off, I'm not sure if it would \"\"close\"\" the account, your credit history might show the account as being paid, which is a good thing.\"" }, { "docid": "164702", "title": "", "text": "\"Your son is in the right. But he broke the \"\"unwritten\"\" rules, which is why the car dealer is upset. Basically, cars are sold in the United States at a breakeven price. The car company makes ALL its money on the financing. If everyone bought \"\"all cash,\"\" the car companies would not be profitable. No one expected anyone, least of all your son, a \"\"young person,\"\" to pay \"\"all cash.\"\" When he did, they lost all the profit on the deal. On the other hand, they signed a contract, your son met all the FORMAL requirements, and if there was an \"\"understanding\"\" (an assumption, actually), that the car was supposed to be financed, your son was not part of it. Good for him. And if necessary, you should be prepared to back him up on court.\"" }, { "docid": "362296", "title": "", "text": "You've got a great emergency fund built up and no credit card debt. That's something to be proud of. If you didn't already have those two things taken care of, that would be your first priority. If I were in your situation, I would pay off the student loan. Yes, it's a low interest rate, but you've got the opportunity to pay it off completely and eliminate a monthly payment from your life. Take it. I don't know if you've already contributed to your Roth IRA for this year or not, but I would set aside $11,000 to cover the max contribution to your Roth IRA for this year and next year. That leaves about $10,000 left. Do you have any money set aside for your next car? If not, allocate most of this money toward your next car. When you need to buy another car, you will be able to pay cash and avoid a car loan." }, { "docid": "180295", "title": "", "text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!" }, { "docid": "522723", "title": "", "text": "\"My recommendation is to pay off your student loans as quickly as possible. It sounds like you're already doing this but don't incur any other large debts until you have this taken care of. I'd also recommend not buying a car, especially an expensive one, on credit or lease either. Back during the dotcom boom I and many friends bought or leased expensive cars only to lose them or struggle paying for them when the bottom dropped out. A car instantly depreciates and it's quite rare for them to ever gain value again. Stick with reliable, older, used cars that you can purchase for cash. If you do borrow for a car, shop around for the best deal and avoid 3+ year terms if at all possible. Don't lease unless you have a business structure where this might create a clear financial advantage. Avoid credit cards as much as possible although if you do plan to buy a house with a mortgage you'll need to maintain some credit history. If you have the discipline to keep your balance small and paid down you can use a credit card to build credit history. However, these things can quickly get out of hand and you'll wonder why you suddenly owe $10K, $20K or even more on them so be very careful with them. As for the house (speaking of US markets here), save up for at least a 20% down payment if you can. Based on what you said, this would be about $20-25K. This will give you a lot more flexibility to take advantage of deals that might come your way, even if you don't put it all into the house. \"\"Stretching\"\" to buy a house that's too expensive can quickly lead to financial ruin. As for house size, I recommend purchasing a 4 bedroom house even if you aren't planning on kids right away. It will resell better and you'll appreciate having the extra space for storage, home office, hobbies, etc. Also, life has a way of changing your plans for having kids and such.\"" }, { "docid": "388899", "title": "", "text": "\"Lachlan has $600 cash and a car worth $500. That's $1,100. The new car is priced at $21,800. Lachlan needs a loan for $20,700. However, the finance company insists that the buyer must pay a 10% deposit, which is $2,180. Lachlan only has $1,100, so no loan. The car dealer wants to make a sale, so suggests some tricks. The car dealer could buy Lachlan's old banger for $1,500 instead of $500, and sell the new car for $22,800 instead of $21,800. Doesn't make a difference to the dealer, he gets the same amount of cash. Now Lachlan has $600 cash and $1,500 for his car or $2,100 in total. He needs 10% of $22,800 as deposit which is $2,280. That's not quite there but you see how the principle works. Lachlan is about $200 short. So the dealer adds $1,200 to both car prices. Lachlan has $600 cash and a car \"\"worth\"\" $1,700, total $2,300. The new car is sold for $23,000 requiring a $2,300 deposit which works out exactly. How could we have found the right amount without guessing? Lachlan had $1,100. The new car costs $21,800. The dealer increases both prices by x dollars. Lachlan has now $1,100 + x deposit. The car now costs $21,800 + x. The deposit should be 10%, so $1,100 + x = 10% of ($21,800 + x) = $2,180 + 0.1 x. $1,100 + x = $2,180 + 0.1 x : Subtract $1,100 x = $1,080 + 0.1 x : Subtract 0.1 x 0.9 x = $1,080 : Divide by 0.9 x = $1,080 / 0.9 = $1,200 The dealer inflates the cost of the new car and the value of the old car by $1,200. Now that's the theory. In practice I don't know how the finance company feels about this, and if they would be happy if they found out.\"" }, { "docid": "574691", "title": "", "text": "Yes, this is fine: You can save up to £20,000 in one type of account or split the allowance across some or all of the other types. You can only pay £4,000 into your Lifetime ISA in a tax year ... Example You could save £11,000 in a cash ISA, £2,000 in a stocks and shares ISA, £3,000 in an innovative finance ISA and £4,000 in a Lifetime ISA in one tax year. https://www.gov.uk/individual-savings-accounts/how-isas-work You might want to consider whether it is wise to be fully invested in shares. If you're going to have to dip into them for things like holidays and a car, you're taking a risk that you might have to sell when the market is low. As a basic rate taxpayer, you have a £1 000 personal savings allowance. You don't need to chase the tax break with a cash ISA, which often have poor rates. However, you should consider keeping some of your savings in cash, for example in a current account that pays decent interest on the balance." }, { "docid": "110046", "title": "", "text": "Everybody on the car title will need to participate in the selling process. The person who is buying the car will need everybody to sign the paperwork so that nobody months later tries to say they never agreed to sell the car. The money will have to be sent to the lender to pay off the rest of the loan. If the money isn't enough to pay off the loan everybody will have to decide how the extra money will be sent to the lender. This will have to be done as part of the selling process because the lender doesn't want you to sell the car and keep the cash. Once the car is gone so is the collateral and they can't take it back if you miss payments. If the cousin is too far away to participate in the selling of the car, you may need the buyer and the lender to tell you how to proceeded. If you are selling at a dealership they will know what documents and signatures will be needed, the bank will also know what to do. If the loan is almost paid off it may be easier to pay the loan first, and then get the title without the lenders name before trying to sell it." }, { "docid": "15696", "title": "", "text": "Yes, truckloads of cash. /s It's exactly the same as your example, when people say to pay for a car in cash, they don't meany physical bills, but rather the idea that you aren't getting a loan. In most acquisitions, the buyer will usually pay with their own stock, pay in cash, or a combination of both." }, { "docid": "146204", "title": "", "text": "There is economic value added to the marketplace, by having many investors trading stocks. The stock market itself can be thought of as a tool which provides additional 'liquidity' to the marketplace. Liquidity is the ease with which you can convert your assets into cash (for example, how quickly could you sell your car if you needed money to pay a medical bill?). Without a stock market, funds would be very illiquid - an investor would likely need to post advertisements to have other people consider buying his/her shares. Until the match between a buyer and seller is found, the person with the shares can't use the cash they need. On the other side of the transaction, are people who have an appetite for risk. This means that, for various reasons, they are willing to take on more risk than you, if it pays off on average (they are young [and have many years of salary earnings in front of them], or they are rich [can afford to lose money sometimes if it pays off on average]). Consider this like a transaction between your insurance broker - you don't want to pay for a new car if you get in an accident, and you're willing to pay total annual premiums that, on average, will cost more than that same car over time. You don't want the risk, but the insurance company does - that's how they make money. So by participating in any marketplace, you are providing value, in the form of liquidity, and by allowing the market to allocate risk to those willing to take it on." }, { "docid": "549759", "title": "", "text": "If you don't know how to fix your own car or have time to take car parts off of a car at a junk yard, the average amount of money per month you spend on repairing an old car will be greater than the amount of money you spend per month on a new car payment. This is because car repair shops are charging $85 per hour for labor for car repairs. Many parts that wear out on a car are difficult to replace because of their location on the engine. The classic example is piston rings." }, { "docid": "332335", "title": "", "text": "You can simply use them to pay in a supermarket or anywhere else. Just give them the card and say ‘put 1.23$ on this one please, and the rest I pay cash‘ or whatever. They might be annoyed when you have really many, but you can use up one every time you shop easily. For some cards, you do not even have to know the remaining amount, just say use it up. Note that supermarkets are preferable because they are typically used to that, and know how to handle it." } ]

[ { "docid": "388798", "title": "", "text": "You could write a personal check after the final price has been set and you're ready to purchase. Another option would be to get the final price - then walk over to your bank and get a cashier's check." } ]

[ { "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": "129350", "title": "", "text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals." }, { "docid": "219033", "title": "", "text": "It is possible to not use checks in the US. I personally use a credit card for almost everything and often have no cash in my wallet at all. I never carry checks with me. If we wanted to, we could pay all of our monthly bills without checks as well, and many people do this. 30 years ago, grocery stores didn't generally accept credit cards, so it was cash or check, though most other kinds of stores and restaurants did. Now, the only stores that I have encountered in years that do not accept credit cards are a local chicken restaurant, and the warehouse-shopping store Costco. (Costco accepts its own credit card, but not Mastercard or Visa.) Still, we do pay the majority of our monthly bills via check, and it would not be shocking to see someone paying for groceries with a check. I can't name the last time I saw someone write a check at a store exactly, but I've never seen any cashier or other patrons wonder what a check-writer was trying to do. Large transactions, like buying a car or house, would still use checks -- probably cashier's or certified checks and not personal checks, though." }, { "docid": "516631", "title": "", "text": "I might be missing something, but I always understood that leasing is about managing cash-flow in a business. You have a fixed monthly out-going as opposed to an up-front payment. My accountant (here in Germany) recommended: pay cash, take a loan (often the manufactures offer good rates) or lease - in that order. The leasing company has to raise the cash from somewhere and they don't want to make a loss on the deal. They will probably know better than I how to manage that and will therefore be calculating in the projected resale value at the end of the leasing period. I can't see how an electric car would make any difference here. These people are probably better informed about the resale value of any type of car than I am. My feeling is to buy using a loan from the manufacturer. The rates are often good and I have also got good deals on insurance as a part of that package. Here in Germany the sales tax (VAT) can be immediately claimed back in full when the loan deal is signed." }, { "docid": "260146", "title": "", "text": "\"I've lived this decision, and from my \"\"anecdata\"\": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city. I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system). I live downtown. I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house). I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals. I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a \"\"named non-owner\"\" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI. It's always quoted higher. In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100. Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging. But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs. Not every weekend, but pretty close. But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year. I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years. Summary: Pull the trigger, do it :D\"" }, { "docid": "489091", "title": "", "text": "You are really showing some wisdom here, and congratulations on finishing college. Its a lot about likelihoods. If you buy a new car, there is something like a 99.5% chance you will get a car that will not need repairs. If you buy a car for $1200 there is probably a 20% chance that the car will only need minimal repairs. So the answer is there is no real guarantee that spending any amount of money you will end up with a car with no repairs. You also can't assume that with buying a car it will immediately need repairs. Its possible, that you could spend 1200 on a car and it will need an oil change. In three months it might need brakes and in 6 months tires. If that is the case, you could save up the money for repairs. Have you looked for a car? It will take some work, but you might be able to find something in good condition for your budget. If you shop for a loan, go with a good credit union or local bank. Mostly you are looking for a low rate. However, I would advise against it. You worked so hard on getting out of school without debt, why start now? Be weird and buy a car for cash. Heck someone may be able to loan you a car for a short time while you save some money." }, { "docid": "265013", "title": "", "text": "\"On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option \"\"not yet resolved\"\" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was). So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process. And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its \"\"150-item inspection you can rely on\"\". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its \"\"forecourt price\"\", \"\"private selling price\"\", \"\"part exchange price\"\", and \"\"auction price\"\". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]\"" }, { "docid": "418801", "title": "", "text": "There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal. When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item. By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest. You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments. You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong. Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail. As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account. A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash." }, { "docid": "585241", "title": "", "text": "There are several factors here. Firstly, there's opportunity cost, i.e. what you would get with the money elsewhere. If you have higher interest opportunities (investing, paying down debt) elsewhere, you could be paying that down instead. There's also domino effects: by reducing your liquid savings to or below the minimum, you can't move any of it into tax advantaged retirement accounts earning higher interest. Then there's the insurance costs. You are required to buy extra insurance to protect your lender. You should factor in the extra insurance you would buy vs the insurance required. Given that you can buy the car yourself, catastrophic insurance may not be necessary, or you may prefer a higher deductible than your lender will allow. If you're not sufficiently capitalized, you may need gap insurance to cover when your car depreciates faster than your loan is paid down. A 30 percent payment should be enough to not need it though. Finally, there's some value in having options. If you have the loan and the cash, you can likely pay it off without penalty. But it will be harder to get the loan if you don't finance it. Maybe you can take out a loan against the car later, but I haven't looked into the fees that might incur. If it's any help, I'm in the last stretch of a 3 year car loan. At the time paying in cash wasn't an option, and having done it I recognize that it's more complicated than it seems." }, { "docid": "183311", "title": "", "text": "I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I'm just asking how we know this. It's one thing if it's a logical deduction you've made, but it's another if there's direct objective evidence. Do these statistics pertain to all car sales or just factory car sales? The car I own today is the car I've owned the longest, but it's not because I can't afford to buy another one, it's because I have absolutely no reason to. My car was made in 2000; it has 115k miles on it. I could write a long list of things that are still performing just as adequately as they did when it was new, and how aside from being somewhat less powerful it doesn't actually do anything worse than comparable new cars; I'll spare you. :) Cars in 1970 were never expected to be driven past 100k miles without major service work, including an engine and transmission overhaul. Many cars well into the late 70s didn't even come with that many digits on the odometer. The economic conditions you mention, including the astonishing transfer of wealth between classes, are not good signs and it obviously needs to be reversed or this country is going to be a really shitty place to live soon. And hell yes I believe it's affecting car sales. But I'm really not convinced it's the main reason car sales peaked 40 years ago. Housing sales only peaked a few years ago, and both markets have screwed themselves over-issuing credit, albeit in different ways. Point is, you don't need to be able to afford a car when you can get a loan practically at the push of a button; Americans don't think in terms of what something costs, they think in terms of what it costs *per month*. Income shrinkage has been allowed to happen because people have been allowed to spend money they don't have. I know people living paycheck-to-paycheck who spend $150 - $250 per month on just data. They also have $10k's of revolving credit card debt and, even worse, $10k's in student loans. $250 per month won't save up for a new Cadillac anytime soon, but it *will* put you into a Cadillac if you don't mind having spent $63k on a $38k car by the time your loan matures. (Edit: those numbers are pretty exaggerated, $250/mo. wouldn't get you a Cadillac until it was several years old. You'd still end up paying several thousand more than if you'd paid cash, though... the point is that our economy is floating on credit, and this has allowed rampant overspending and living above means in the average household). You see what I'm saying? All other factors being equal car sales should have peaked a few years ago, or at least in the late 90s during the (first?) dot com bubble. There was *far* more spending power out there - not income, but spending power." }, { "docid": "346042", "title": "", "text": "When you pay cash for a car, you don't always necessarily need to pay cash. You just aren't using credit or a loan is all. A few options you have are: Obviously no dealer expects anyone to just have the cash laying around for a car worth a few thousand dollars, nor would you bother going to your bank or credit union for the cash. You can simply get a cashier's check made out for the amount. Note that dealers may not accept personal checks as they may bounce. After negotiations at the dealer, you would explain you're paying cash, likely pay a deposit (depending on the price of the car, but $500 would probably be enough. Again, the deposit can be a check or bank deposit), and then come back later on with a cashier's check, or deposit into a bank account. You would be able to do this later that day or within a few days, but since you've purchased a new car you would probably want to return ASAP!" }, { "docid": "268835", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it's all or none. First, 15 year mortgages are sub-3% right now, even for an investment property you'd get under 4%. shop around, do the math, a 1% drop is $1000 a year to start, nothing to sneeze at. Don't let the tax tail wag the decision dog. If you could invest the $100K at a taxable 5.5% in this economy, you would. In this case, that's your return on prepayments on this mortgage. Personally, I'd like to see a refinance and pay down of principal so the cash flow is at least positive. Beyond that, you need to decide how much cash you're comfortable having or not having in savings. I'd also consider when to start investing long term, in equities. (low cost ETFs is what I prefer)." }, { "docid": "152210", "title": "", "text": "\"A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't \"\"real money\"\" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an \"\"expense\"\" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly.\"" }, { "docid": "376016", "title": "", "text": "If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate." }, { "docid": "381341", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"" }, { "docid": "362887", "title": "", "text": "\"Which of these categories are emergency funds meant to cover? Emergency funds are for emergencies, which to me means expenses that are unanticipated and can't be covered out of \"\"normal\"\" cash-flow. Oil changes are not an \"\"emergency\"\" and should be part of your normal budget. Car/house repairs and doctor visits might be an emergency depending on the severity and the urgency (e.g. do I need to fix this now or can I save up and fix it?) For known, predictable expenses that are infrequent (Christmas, birthdays, car insurance, home insurance/taxes if it's not part of your mortgage payment), I use an escrow account. I calculate how much I'll need for all of those things put together over the year and set aside a fixed amount each paycheck to ensure that I have enough to cover each item. You could do something similar for minor doctor visits, car repairs, etc. Estimate how much you might spend and set aside some money each month. If you find you're spending more than you thought, just increase the amount. You can use envelopes for each type of expense, have a separate checking account for those, whatever. The point is to set it aside and make sure you have enough left over to cover your known expenses. The whole point of an emergency fund is to be able to pay cash for emergencies rather than borrowing to pay them and dealing with interest, late fees, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "108390", "title": "", "text": "There were several incidences of cash shortages in the Danish system recently. On particular saturdays when the streets were bloated with shoppers, you could see the queues for the ATMs stretching for 40-50 yards, and people shaking their heads about why their cards didnt work in the shops. They have a separate national system to visa called Dankort which everyone is very proud of. But it is curiously prone to failures from time to time. Large cash transactions (over 10,000 DKK) are monitored and questioned verbally when withdrawn or deposited in banks. Interesting also how Danish banks are the most heavily leveraged in Europe..." }, { "docid": "13975", "title": "", "text": "\"Imagine that, a car dealership lied to someone trusting. Who would have thought. A big question is how well do you get along with your \"\"ex\"\"? Can you be in the same room without fighting? Can you agree on things that are mutually beneficial? The car will have to be paid off, and taken out of his name. The mechanics on how to do this is a bit tricky and you may want to see a lawyer about it. Having you being the sole owner of the car benefits him because he is no longer a cosigner on a loan. This will help him get additional loans if he chooses, or cosign on his next gf's car. And of course this benefits you as you \"\"own\"\" the car instead of both of you. You will probably have to refinance the car in your name only. Do you have sufficient credit? Once this happens can you pay off the car in like a year or so? If you search this site a similar questions is asked about once per month. Car loans are pretty terrible, in the future you should avoid them. Cosigning is even worse and you should never again participate in such a thing. Another option is to just sell the car and start over with your own car hopefully paid for in cash.\"" }, { "docid": "519950", "title": "", "text": "Presumably you need a car to get to work, so let's start with the assumption that you need to buy something to replace the car you just lost. The biggest difficulty to overcome in buying a car is the concept of the monthly payment. Dealers will play games with all of the numbers to massage a monthly payment that the buyer can swallow, but this usually doesn't end up giving the customer the best deal. The 18 month term is not normal for a lease, typically you'll see 24 or 36 months. You are focusing on another goal of paying your student loans by then which would free up much more money for other wants (like a car) but at what cost? The big difficulty of personal finance is the mental mind game of delaying gratification for greater long-term benefit. You are focusing on paying your student loans now so that you can be free of that debt and have more flexibility for the future. Good. You're tempted to spend another $5400 (assuming no down-payment or other surprise fees) to drive a car for 18 months. That doesn't sound any wiser than $5,000 for an unreliable used car that gave you more problems than you bargained for. Presumably you got some percentage of that money back from the insurance company when the car was totaled, but even if not, the real lesson should be finding a car that you can afford up-front, but also one that you can still use when the loan is paid off (like your education--that investment will keep giving even when the loans are a distant memory). My advice would be to look for a car that has about 30k miles on it and pay for it as quickly as possible, then drive it at least for 70-120k more miles before replacing it. You may wish for a newer car, especially in 3 or 4 more years when it starts to show its age, but you'll also thank yourself when you can buy a newer better car with cash and break out of the monthly payment game that dealers try to push on you. You might even enjoy negotiating with car salesmen when you see through their manipulations and simply work for the best cash price you can get." } ]

[ { "docid": "296769", "title": "", "text": "I usually get a cashiers check to cover about 90% - 95% of the expected amount (whatever I think is just below my wet-dream-price), and bring the rest in cash. That doesn't require so much cash to be carried. Alternatively you can write a personal check for the exact reminder, or go to the bank for the reminder after the deal is made - with the majority already paid in a cashiers check nobody would disagree." } ]

[ { "docid": "152210", "title": "", "text": "\"A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't \"\"real money\"\" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an \"\"expense\"\" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly.\"" }, { "docid": "437182", "title": "", "text": "We aim to keep 6 months of expenses. The rationale is that its enough time to recover from most serious illnesses (that you can recover from) or a redundancy or pay for a large unexpected problem not covered by the insurance (e.g. the boiler dying). It also gives us enough time to reorganise finances if needed. For example we could get out of contracts (like mobile phones, sky TV), sell the car, and maybe even find a cheaper house if needed in that time. It will take a good chunk of time to build up that amount and it's worth considering how many commitments you have (kids, wife, mortgage, car...) as the fewer you have the less you need. If you have fewer commitments you can be comfortable with much less contingency. When I lived in rented accomodation and didn't run a car or have many possessions, I just maintained enough cash to cover my bills for about 6 weeks, this would give me enough time to find another job, and if I didn't get one I could always crash round a friend's house." }, { "docid": "376016", "title": "", "text": "If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate." }, { "docid": "60261", "title": "", "text": "\"You do not say what country you are in. This is an answer for readers in the UK. Most normal balance transfer deals are only for paying off other credit cards. However there are \"\"money transfer\"\" deals that will pay the money direct to your bank account. The deals aren't as good as balance transfer deals but they are often a competitive option compared to other types of borrowing. Another option depending on how much you need to borrow and your regular spending habits is to get a card with a \"\"0% for purchases\"\" deal and use that card for your regular shopping, then put the money you would have spent on your regular shopping towards the car.\"" }, { "docid": "416606", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm going to ignore your numbers to avoid spending the time to understand them. I'm just going to go over the basic moving parts of trading an upside down car against another financed car because I think you're conflating price and value. I'm also going to ignore taxes, and fees, and depreciation. The car has an acquisition cost (price) then it has a value. You pay the price to obtain this thing, then in the future it is worth what someone else will pay you. When you finance a car you agree to your $10,000 price, then you call up Mr. Bank and agree to pay 10% per year for 5 years on that $10,000. Mr. Banker wires over $10,000 and you drive home in your car. Say in a year you want a different car. This new car has a price of $20,000, and wouldn't you know it they'll even buy your current car from you. They'll give you $7,000 to trade in your current car. Your current car has a value of $7,000. You've made 12 payments of $188.71. Of those payments about $460 was interest, you now owe about $8,195 to Mr. Banker. The new dealership needs to send payment to Mr. Banker to get the title for your current car. They'll send the $7,000 they agreed to pay for your car. Then they'll loan you the additional $1,195 ($8,195 owed on the car minus $7,000 trade in value). Your loan on the new car will be for $21,195, $20,000 for the new car and $1,195 for the amount you still owed on the old car after the dealership paid you $7,000 for your old car. It doesn't matter what your down-payment was on the old car, it doesn't matter what your payment was before, it doesn't matter what you bought your old car for. All that matters is how much you owe on it today and how much the buyer (the dealership) is willing to pay you for it. How much of this is \"\"loss\"\" is an extremely vague number to derive primarily because your utility of the car has a value. But it could be argued that the $1,195 added on to your new car loan to pay for the old car is lost.\"" }, { "docid": "584106", "title": "", "text": "If you want the new car, pay cash for it. Here's why: By paying cash for the car, you immediately save $2,500 off the price of the car. That is not insignificant, it's 8.3% off. By paying cash, you'll never be upside down on the car, and you can sell the car anytime you want. You said that all you need to do is beat the 0.9% interest rate with your investment to come out ahead. That doesn't take into account the discount you would have gotten by paying cash. $30,000 invested for 5 years at 1.6% (rough estimate) would get you $2,500 (the discount), so the rate you need to beat to come out ahead is actually 2.5%. Still doable, but it is much less of a sure thing on a 5 year investment, and much less worth the trouble. New cars are an expensive luxury. If you are wealthy enough, a new car certainly can be appropriate for you. However, if you don't like the idea of paying $30k in cash all at once, that is a strong indication that perhaps the new car is a luxury you aren't in a position to buy at this time. Borrowing the money and paying for it over time makes it psychologically easier to over spend on transportation." }, { "docid": "585241", "title": "", "text": "There are several factors here. Firstly, there's opportunity cost, i.e. what you would get with the money elsewhere. If you have higher interest opportunities (investing, paying down debt) elsewhere, you could be paying that down instead. There's also domino effects: by reducing your liquid savings to or below the minimum, you can't move any of it into tax advantaged retirement accounts earning higher interest. Then there's the insurance costs. You are required to buy extra insurance to protect your lender. You should factor in the extra insurance you would buy vs the insurance required. Given that you can buy the car yourself, catastrophic insurance may not be necessary, or you may prefer a higher deductible than your lender will allow. If you're not sufficiently capitalized, you may need gap insurance to cover when your car depreciates faster than your loan is paid down. A 30 percent payment should be enough to not need it though. Finally, there's some value in having options. If you have the loan and the cash, you can likely pay it off without penalty. But it will be harder to get the loan if you don't finance it. Maybe you can take out a loan against the car later, but I haven't looked into the fees that might incur. If it's any help, I'm in the last stretch of a 3 year car loan. At the time paying in cash wasn't an option, and having done it I recognize that it's more complicated than it seems." }, { "docid": "105694", "title": "", "text": "To add to what others have said, INSTALLMENT CREDIT is a stronger factor when building credit. An installment credit is essentially a loan with a fixed repay amount such as a student loan and a car loan. Banks (when it comes to buying your first home) want to see that you are financially able to repay a big debt (car loan). But be careful, if you cannot pay cash, you cannot afford it. My rule of thumb is that when I'm charging something to my CC, I MUST pay it off when it posts to my account. I just became debt free (paid off about 15k in CC and student loan debt in 18 months) and I love it." }, { "docid": "334654", "title": "", "text": "The best way to save on clothes is up to you. I have friends who save all year for two yearly shopping trips to update anything that may need updating at the time. By allowing themselves only two trips, they control the money spent. Bring it in cash and stop buying when you run out. On the other hand in my family we shop sales. When we determine that we need something we wait until we find a sale. When we see an exceptionally good sale on something we know we will need (basic work dress shoes, for example), we'll purchase it and save it until the existing item it is replacing has worn out. Our strategy is to know what we need and buy it when the price is right. We tend to wait on anything that isn't on sale until we can find the right item at a price we like, which sometimes means stretching the existing piece of clothing it is replacing until well after its prime. If you've got a list you're shopping from, you know what you need. The question becomes: how will you control your spending best? Carefully shopping sales and using coupons, or budgeting for a spree within limits?" }, { "docid": "552792", "title": "", "text": "\"Aside from the calculations of \"\"how much you save through reducing interest\"\", you have two different types of loan here. The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in \"\"houses\"\", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of \"\"paying by installments\"\" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to \"\"get the $11,000 back\"\" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover \"\"normal emergencies\"\" without having to take this sort of action, but \"\"abnormal emergencies\"\" do sometimes happen!\"" }, { "docid": "347849", "title": "", "text": "First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing." }, { "docid": "146204", "title": "", "text": "There is economic value added to the marketplace, by having many investors trading stocks. The stock market itself can be thought of as a tool which provides additional 'liquidity' to the marketplace. Liquidity is the ease with which you can convert your assets into cash (for example, how quickly could you sell your car if you needed money to pay a medical bill?). Without a stock market, funds would be very illiquid - an investor would likely need to post advertisements to have other people consider buying his/her shares. Until the match between a buyer and seller is found, the person with the shares can't use the cash they need. On the other side of the transaction, are people who have an appetite for risk. This means that, for various reasons, they are willing to take on more risk than you, if it pays off on average (they are young [and have many years of salary earnings in front of them], or they are rich [can afford to lose money sometimes if it pays off on average]). Consider this like a transaction between your insurance broker - you don't want to pay for a new car if you get in an accident, and you're willing to pay total annual premiums that, on average, will cost more than that same car over time. You don't want the risk, but the insurance company does - that's how they make money. So by participating in any marketplace, you are providing value, in the form of liquidity, and by allowing the market to allocate risk to those willing to take it on." }, { "docid": "421743", "title": "", "text": "\"never carry a balance on a credit card. there is almost always a cheaper way to borrow money. the exception to that rule is when you are offered a 0% promotion on a credit card, but even then watch out for cash advance fees and how payments are applied (typically to promotional balances first). paying interest on daily spending is a bad idea. generally, the only time you should pay interest is on a home loan, car loan or education loan. basically that's because those loans can either allow you to reduce an expense (e.g. apartment rent, taxi fair), or increase your income (by getting a better job). you can try to make an argument about the utility of a dollar, but all sophistry aside you are better off investing than borrowing under normal circumstances. that said, using a credit card (with no annual fee) can build credit for a future car or home loan. the biggest advantage of a credit card is cash back. if you have good credit you can get a credit card that offers at least 1% cash back on every purchase. if you don't have good credit, using a credit card with no annual fee can be a good way to build credit until you can get approved for a 2% card (e.g. citi double cash). additionally, technically, you can get close to 10% cash back by chasing sign up bonuses. however, that requires applying for new cards frequently and keeping track of minimum spend etc. credit cards also protect you from fraud. if someone uses your debit card number, you can be short on cash until your bank fixes it. but if someone uses your credit card number, you can simply dispute the charge when you get the bill. you don't have to worry about how to make rent after an unexpected 2k$ charge. side note: it is a common mis-conception that credit card issuers only make money from cardholder interest and fees. card issuers make a lot of revenue from \"\"interchange fees\"\" paid by merchants every time you use your card. some issuers (e.g. amex) make a majority of their revenue from merchants.\"" }, { "docid": "165550", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is about the dealer, right? The dealer isn't providing this financing to you, Alfa is, and they're paying the dealer that same \"\"On the Road\"\" price when you finance the purchase. So the dealer gets the same amount either way. The financing, through Alfa, means your payments go to Alfa. And they're willing to give you 3,000 towards purchase of the car at the dealer in order to motivate those who can afford payments but not full cash for the car. They end up selling more cars this way, keeping the factories busy and employees and stockholders happy along the way. At least, that's how it's supposed to work out.\"" }, { "docid": "390066", "title": "", "text": "Mostly ditto Pete B's answer. There's little you can do about closing costs. Some closing costs are government fees. There's nothing you can do about this. Sad and unfair as it is, taxes are not optional and not generally negotiable. Title insurance and fire insurance are required by the lender. Even if you're paying cash, you don't really want to skip on these. If your house burns down and you have no insurance ... well, if you're worried about saving a few hundred on your closing costs, I assume that losing $200,000 because your house burned down and you have no insurance would be a pretty bad thing. Title insurance protects you against the possibility that the seller doesn't really legally own the property, maybe a scam, more likely a mistake or a technicality. You can, and certainly should, shop around for a better deal on insurance. Last couple of housing transactions I made, title insurance was a one-time fee of around $200. (I'm sure this depends on the cost of the house, where you live, maybe other factors.) Maybe by shopping around I could have saved $10 or $20, but I doubt there's someone out there charging $50 when everyone else is charging $200. Fire insurance you're probably paying a couple of thousand a year, more opportunity for savings. Typically the buyer and the seller each have a realtor and they split the fee. If you go without a realtor but the seller hires one, she'll keep the entire fee. So the only way to avoid this expense is if neither of you has a realtor. I've never done that. Realtors cost a ton of money but they provide a useful service: not only helping you find a house but also knowing how to deal with all the paperwork. Plenty of people do it, though. I presume they get the title agency or the bank or somebody to help with the paperwork. There are also discount realtors out there who don't show your home, do little or nothing to market it, basically just help you with the paperwork, and then charge a very low fee. Timing closing for a certain day of the month can reduce what you owe at closing time -- by reducing the amount of interest you pay on the first month's loan payment -- but it doesn't save you any money. You'll make it up over the course of the loan. You might possibly save some money by timing closing around when property taxes are due. Theoretically this shouldn't matter: the theory is that they pro-rate property taxes between buyer and seller so each pays the taxes for the time when they own the house. So again, you might need less cash at closing but you'll make it up the next time property taxes are due. But the formulas the banks use on this are often goofy. Maybe if you live some place with high property taxes this is worth investigating. You could skip the inspection. But inspections I've had done generally cost about $500. If they found something that was a major issue, they might save you from buying a house that would cost tens of thousands in repairs. Or less dramatically, you can use the inspection report for leverage with the seller to get repairs done at the seller's expense. I once had an inspector report problems with the roof and so I negotiated with the seller that they would pay for a percentage of roof repair. I suppose if you're buying a house that you know is run down and will require major work, an inspection might be superfluous. Or if you know enough about construction that you can do an inspection yourself. Otherwise, it's like not buying insurance: sure, you save a little up front, but you're taking a huge risk. So what can you control? (a) Shop around for fire insurance. Maybe save hundreds of dollars. (b) Find a seller who's not using a realtor and then you don't use a realtor either. Save big bucks, 6 to 7% in my area, but you then have to figure out how to do all the paperwork yourself and you severely limit your buying options as most sellers DO use a realtor. Besides that, there's not much you can do." }, { "docid": "66122", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely do not pay off the car if you aren't planning to keep it. The amount of equity that you have from a trade in vehicle will always be a variable when negotiating a new car purchase. By applying cash (a hard asset) to increase your equity, you are trading a fixed amount for an unknown, variable amount. You are also moving from a position of more certainty for a position of less certainty. You gain nothing by paying off the car, whereas the dealer can negotiate away a larger piece of the equity in the vehicle." }, { "docid": "522723", "title": "", "text": "\"My recommendation is to pay off your student loans as quickly as possible. It sounds like you're already doing this but don't incur any other large debts until you have this taken care of. I'd also recommend not buying a car, especially an expensive one, on credit or lease either. Back during the dotcom boom I and many friends bought or leased expensive cars only to lose them or struggle paying for them when the bottom dropped out. A car instantly depreciates and it's quite rare for them to ever gain value again. Stick with reliable, older, used cars that you can purchase for cash. If you do borrow for a car, shop around for the best deal and avoid 3+ year terms if at all possible. Don't lease unless you have a business structure where this might create a clear financial advantage. Avoid credit cards as much as possible although if you do plan to buy a house with a mortgage you'll need to maintain some credit history. If you have the discipline to keep your balance small and paid down you can use a credit card to build credit history. However, these things can quickly get out of hand and you'll wonder why you suddenly owe $10K, $20K or even more on them so be very careful with them. As for the house (speaking of US markets here), save up for at least a 20% down payment if you can. Based on what you said, this would be about $20-25K. This will give you a lot more flexibility to take advantage of deals that might come your way, even if you don't put it all into the house. \"\"Stretching\"\" to buy a house that's too expensive can quickly lead to financial ruin. As for house size, I recommend purchasing a 4 bedroom house even if you aren't planning on kids right away. It will resell better and you'll appreciate having the extra space for storage, home office, hobbies, etc. Also, life has a way of changing your plans for having kids and such.\"" }, { "docid": "115935", "title": "", "text": "\"The real answer is to talk to the bank. In the case of the last car loan I got, the answer is \"\"no\"\". When I asked them about rates, they gave me a printed sheet that listed the loan rates they offered based on how old the car was, period. I forget the exact numbers but it was like: New car: 4%, 1 year old: 4.5%, 2-3 years old 5%, etc. I suspect that at most banks these days, it's not up to the loan officer to come up with what he considers reasonable terms for a loan based on whatever factors you may bring up and he agrees are relevant. The bank is going to have a set policy, under these conditions, this is the rate, and that's what you get. So if the bank includes the size of the down payment in their calculations, then yes, it will be relevant. If they don't, than it won't. The thing to do would be to ask your bank. If you're only borrowing $2000, and you've managed to save up $11,000, I'd guess you can pay off the $2,000 pretty quickly. So as Keshlam says, the interest rate probably isn't all that important. If you can pay it off in a year, then the difference between 5% and 1% is only $80. If you're buying a $13,000 car, I can't imagine you're going to agonize over $80. BTW I've bought two cars in the last few years with about half the cost in cash and putting the rest on my credit card. (One for me and one for my daughter.) Then I paid off the credit card in a couple of months. Sure, the interest rate on a credit card is much higher than a car loan, but as it was only for a few months, it made very little real difference, and it took zero effort to arrange the loan and gave me total flexibility in the repayment schedule. Credit card companies often offer convenience checks where you pay like 3% or so transaction fee and then 0% interest for a year or more, so it would just cost the 3% up front fee.\"" }, { "docid": "261016", "title": "", "text": "\"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who \"\"dislike\"\" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "346042", "title": "", "text": "When you pay cash for a car, you don't always necessarily need to pay cash. You just aren't using credit or a loan is all. A few options you have are: Obviously no dealer expects anyone to just have the cash laying around for a car worth a few thousand dollars, nor would you bother going to your bank or credit union for the cash. You can simply get a cashier's check made out for the amount. Note that dealers may not accept personal checks as they may bounce. After negotiations at the dealer, you would explain you're paying cash, likely pay a deposit (depending on the price of the car, but $500 would probably be enough. Again, the deposit can be a check or bank deposit), and then come back later on with a cashier's check, or deposit into a bank account. You would be able to do this later that day or within a few days, but since you've purchased a new car you would probably want to return ASAP!" } ]

[ { "docid": "584106", "title": "", "text": "If you want the new car, pay cash for it. Here's why: By paying cash for the car, you immediately save $2,500 off the price of the car. That is not insignificant, it's 8.3% off. By paying cash, you'll never be upside down on the car, and you can sell the car anytime you want. You said that all you need to do is beat the 0.9% interest rate with your investment to come out ahead. That doesn't take into account the discount you would have gotten by paying cash. $30,000 invested for 5 years at 1.6% (rough estimate) would get you $2,500 (the discount), so the rate you need to beat to come out ahead is actually 2.5%. Still doable, but it is much less of a sure thing on a 5 year investment, and much less worth the trouble. New cars are an expensive luxury. If you are wealthy enough, a new car certainly can be appropriate for you. However, if you don't like the idea of paying $30k in cash all at once, that is a strong indication that perhaps the new car is a luxury you aren't in a position to buy at this time. Borrowing the money and paying for it over time makes it psychologically easier to over spend on transportation." }, { "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": "105694", "title": "", "text": "To add to what others have said, INSTALLMENT CREDIT is a stronger factor when building credit. An installment credit is essentially a loan with a fixed repay amount such as a student loan and a car loan. Banks (when it comes to buying your first home) want to see that you are financially able to repay a big debt (car loan). But be careful, if you cannot pay cash, you cannot afford it. My rule of thumb is that when I'm charging something to my CC, I MUST pay it off when it posts to my account. I just became debt free (paid off about 15k in CC and student loan debt in 18 months) and I love it." }, { "docid": "183311", "title": "", "text": "I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I'm just asking how we know this. It's one thing if it's a logical deduction you've made, but it's another if there's direct objective evidence. Do these statistics pertain to all car sales or just factory car sales? The car I own today is the car I've owned the longest, but it's not because I can't afford to buy another one, it's because I have absolutely no reason to. My car was made in 2000; it has 115k miles on it. I could write a long list of things that are still performing just as adequately as they did when it was new, and how aside from being somewhat less powerful it doesn't actually do anything worse than comparable new cars; I'll spare you. :) Cars in 1970 were never expected to be driven past 100k miles without major service work, including an engine and transmission overhaul. Many cars well into the late 70s didn't even come with that many digits on the odometer. The economic conditions you mention, including the astonishing transfer of wealth between classes, are not good signs and it obviously needs to be reversed or this country is going to be a really shitty place to live soon. And hell yes I believe it's affecting car sales. But I'm really not convinced it's the main reason car sales peaked 40 years ago. Housing sales only peaked a few years ago, and both markets have screwed themselves over-issuing credit, albeit in different ways. Point is, you don't need to be able to afford a car when you can get a loan practically at the push of a button; Americans don't think in terms of what something costs, they think in terms of what it costs *per month*. Income shrinkage has been allowed to happen because people have been allowed to spend money they don't have. I know people living paycheck-to-paycheck who spend $150 - $250 per month on just data. They also have $10k's of revolving credit card debt and, even worse, $10k's in student loans. $250 per month won't save up for a new Cadillac anytime soon, but it *will* put you into a Cadillac if you don't mind having spent $63k on a $38k car by the time your loan matures. (Edit: those numbers are pretty exaggerated, $250/mo. wouldn't get you a Cadillac until it was several years old. You'd still end up paying several thousand more than if you'd paid cash, though... the point is that our economy is floating on credit, and this has allowed rampant overspending and living above means in the average household). You see what I'm saying? All other factors being equal car sales should have peaked a few years ago, or at least in the late 90s during the (first?) dot com bubble. There was *far* more spending power out there - not income, but spending power." }, { "docid": "421743", "title": "", "text": "\"never carry a balance on a credit card. there is almost always a cheaper way to borrow money. the exception to that rule is when you are offered a 0% promotion on a credit card, but even then watch out for cash advance fees and how payments are applied (typically to promotional balances first). paying interest on daily spending is a bad idea. generally, the only time you should pay interest is on a home loan, car loan or education loan. basically that's because those loans can either allow you to reduce an expense (e.g. apartment rent, taxi fair), or increase your income (by getting a better job). you can try to make an argument about the utility of a dollar, but all sophistry aside you are better off investing than borrowing under normal circumstances. that said, using a credit card (with no annual fee) can build credit for a future car or home loan. the biggest advantage of a credit card is cash back. if you have good credit you can get a credit card that offers at least 1% cash back on every purchase. if you don't have good credit, using a credit card with no annual fee can be a good way to build credit until you can get approved for a 2% card (e.g. citi double cash). additionally, technically, you can get close to 10% cash back by chasing sign up bonuses. however, that requires applying for new cards frequently and keeping track of minimum spend etc. credit cards also protect you from fraud. if someone uses your debit card number, you can be short on cash until your bank fixes it. but if someone uses your credit card number, you can simply dispute the charge when you get the bill. you don't have to worry about how to make rent after an unexpected 2k$ charge. side note: it is a common mis-conception that credit card issuers only make money from cardholder interest and fees. card issuers make a lot of revenue from \"\"interchange fees\"\" paid by merchants every time you use your card. some issuers (e.g. amex) make a majority of their revenue from merchants.\"" }, { "docid": "124258", "title": "", "text": "I still think it will be rather difficult. Best bet is to call around to the five or so closest dealers and express you are considering the car contingent on price (NOT PAYMENT). Ask for them to send you their best out-the-door price on a base model. Then when you get quotes from each of them, shop the lowest price around. Usually dealers will budge a few hundred bucks to beat other dealers. But a 2018 STI will be difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate a few grand under MSRP. Understand that the people that buy this car are not doing so because it is a great bargain. So dealers can usually push this car at or near MSRP. Lastly, do not set foot in a dealership until you have a firm out-the-door price. They will play sales tricks until you give up on negotiation and will pay anything just to get out of there. The only time you should go to the location is to sign papers and drive away with the car. Do not worry about being nice and congenial with the salesperson. This advice got me my current vehicle at about 15% below the lowest True Car estimate. I don't claim this is the best advice out there but it works." }, { "docid": "254500", "title": "", "text": "I'm leaning more towards trading it in can anyone give me some pointers on how to get the best deal? Information is key to getting the best deal possible. That is why I would strongly suggest getting a second opinion on the repairs. A misfire could be caused by many things. From cheap (bad spark plugs or cables) to mid-range cost (timing is off) to expensive (not getting proper compression in the cylinders due to mechanical issues that could require an engine rebuild). Also, car diagnostics is not an exact science, so it is definitely worth checking with another mechanic. You trust the first place you took it too, which is great. You taking it to another place does not represent a lack of trust, it represents knowing that humans are fallible and car repair diagnostics are not perfect either. Once you have quotes from 2 or 3 places for the repair work, you are in a much better position to negotiate. The next step is to see how much it will cost to replace the thing. Get actual quotes for trade-in from dealers, and you must disclose the engine troubles to them when getting this quote. $8,000 minus this amount is how much you are under water. Add that to the price of the car you would like to purchase to know how much of a loan you will have to take out (minus any downpayment). The next thing to consider is how you manage your risk from there. Your new car will be under-water too. Can you even get a loan? Will you need additional collateral or gap insurance to get the loan? What happens if you get in an accident the next day and total this car? Once you have all of this information, you are ready to really start thinking about the decision to be made. Things to consider: How reliable has the HHR been up to now? You don't want to put $3,500 into it now only to have to spend a few grand more in a month to replace the transmission. It is hard for us to know this as we don't know how long you have had it, what troubles you have had in the past, how well you have taken care of it (regular oil changes and maintenance). Keshlam is right about asking mechanics to check for other problems and scheduled maintenance that has not been done (e.g., timing belts replaced). Once you have made your decision, remember that everything is negotiable if you are wiling to walk away. If you decide to keep the car, try to get a better deal on the repairs by checking out other repair shops. If you decide to buy another car and get rid of this one, both the sale price of the new car and the trade-in price of the HHR are negotiable. Shop around and put in the work to buy something that will last a at a good price." }, { "docid": "376016", "title": "", "text": "If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate." }, { "docid": "580555", "title": "", "text": "\"Short answer: If you bought the car -- as opposed to leasing it -- there is no one to \"\"turn it in\"\" to. The reality of cars and car loans is this: The value of a car tends to fall rapidly the first couple of years, then more slowly after that. Like it might lose $2000 the first year, $1000 the second, $500 the third, etc. What you owe on a loan falls slowly at first, because a lot of your payment is going to interest, but then as time goes on you pay off the loan faster and faster. So you may pay off $1000 the first year, $1100 the second, etc. (I'm just making up numbers, depends on the value of the car, and the term and interest rate of the loan, but that's the general idea.) Combining these two things means that in the first few years after you buy a car, if you had a small or no down payment, you might well owe more on the car than it is worth. That's just how the numbers work out. If you keep the car long enough, eventually you hit a point where it is worth more than you owe. Keep it until you've paid off the loan and you owe $0 but the car is still worth SOMETHING, exactly how much depending on its condition and other factors. If you just use the car and pay off the loan, i.e. if you don't sell the car or refinance the loan or some such, then this doesn't matter very much. You make your loan payments, and you have use of the car. What difference does the book value of the car at any given moment matter to you? If the idea of owing more than the car is worth bothers you in principle, then in the future you could make a larger down payment. Or make extra payments on the loan the first couple of years to knock the principle down faster. That's about the only things you can do. Well, you could buy with cash so you owe zero and the car is always worth more than you owe. But given that you are where you are: If you just keep the car and keep driving it and keep paying the loan, then you are exactly where you thought you would be when you bought the car, right? I mean, the day you bought the car, you presumably weren't thinking that at some future date you could refinance at a lower rate. How would you know? So I think the easy answer is: Don't sweat it. Just enjoy the car and pay your bills.\"" }, { "docid": "585241", "title": "", "text": "There are several factors here. Firstly, there's opportunity cost, i.e. what you would get with the money elsewhere. If you have higher interest opportunities (investing, paying down debt) elsewhere, you could be paying that down instead. There's also domino effects: by reducing your liquid savings to or below the minimum, you can't move any of it into tax advantaged retirement accounts earning higher interest. Then there's the insurance costs. You are required to buy extra insurance to protect your lender. You should factor in the extra insurance you would buy vs the insurance required. Given that you can buy the car yourself, catastrophic insurance may not be necessary, or you may prefer a higher deductible than your lender will allow. If you're not sufficiently capitalized, you may need gap insurance to cover when your car depreciates faster than your loan is paid down. A 30 percent payment should be enough to not need it though. Finally, there's some value in having options. If you have the loan and the cash, you can likely pay it off without penalty. But it will be harder to get the loan if you don't finance it. Maybe you can take out a loan against the car later, but I haven't looked into the fees that might incur. If it's any help, I'm in the last stretch of a 3 year car loan. At the time paying in cash wasn't an option, and having done it I recognize that it's more complicated than it seems." }, { "docid": "265013", "title": "", "text": "\"On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option \"\"not yet resolved\"\" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was). So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process. And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its \"\"150-item inspection you can rely on\"\". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its \"\"forecourt price\"\", \"\"private selling price\"\", \"\"part exchange price\"\", and \"\"auction price\"\". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]\"" }, { "docid": "347849", "title": "", "text": "First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing." }, { "docid": "516631", "title": "", "text": "I might be missing something, but I always understood that leasing is about managing cash-flow in a business. You have a fixed monthly out-going as opposed to an up-front payment. My accountant (here in Germany) recommended: pay cash, take a loan (often the manufactures offer good rates) or lease - in that order. The leasing company has to raise the cash from somewhere and they don't want to make a loss on the deal. They will probably know better than I how to manage that and will therefore be calculating in the projected resale value at the end of the leasing period. I can't see how an electric car would make any difference here. These people are probably better informed about the resale value of any type of car than I am. My feeling is to buy using a loan from the manufacturer. The rates are often good and I have also got good deals on insurance as a part of that package. Here in Germany the sales tax (VAT) can be immediately claimed back in full when the loan deal is signed." }, { "docid": "301833", "title": "", "text": "\"If the cheque is crossed (as almost all are these days), it can only be paid into an account in the name of the person it was written out to: it cannot be paid into another's account, nor can it be \"\"cashed\"\"1 – see the rules on \"\"Crossed\"\" cheques. Note: that while the recipient of the cheque cannot (legally) alter this state of afairs, the writer of a cheque that was printed pre-crossed can – at least technically – cancel the crossing (see above link). Probably the best the OP can do is pay in the cheque on the friend's behalf (as described in Ben Millwood's answer) and then either lend the friend some money until they are mobile and can get some cash to repay the OP (or have the friend write one of their own cheques which the OP can pay into their bank account). 1 As mentioned in the last section of the rules on crossed cheques, the only exception is that designated \"\"Cheque cashing shops\"\" have special arrangements to deposit cheques which they have cashed (after deducting a fee). However, they would (should?) require proof of identity (of the original payee) and so are unlikely to be of any help (and probably not worth the cost for £35). Having said that, I've never used one, so have no idea how strict they are in practice.\"" }, { "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": "165550", "title": "", "text": "\"The question is about the dealer, right? The dealer isn't providing this financing to you, Alfa is, and they're paying the dealer that same \"\"On the Road\"\" price when you finance the purchase. So the dealer gets the same amount either way. The financing, through Alfa, means your payments go to Alfa. And they're willing to give you 3,000 towards purchase of the car at the dealer in order to motivate those who can afford payments but not full cash for the car. They end up selling more cars this way, keeping the factories busy and employees and stockholders happy along the way. At least, that's how it's supposed to work out.\"" }, { "docid": "351312", "title": "", "text": "The optimal down payment is 0% IF your interest rate is also 0%. As the interest rate increases, so does the likelihood of the better option being to pay for the car outright. Note that this is probably a binary choice. In other words, depending on the rate you will pay, you should either put 0% down, or 100% down. The interesting question is what formula should you use to determine which way to go? Obviously if you can invest at a higher return than the rate you pay on the car, you would still want to put 0% down. The same goes for inflation, and you can add these two numbers together. For example, if you estimate 2% inflation plus 1% guaranteed investment, then as long as the rate on your car is less than 3%, you would want to minimize the amount you put down. The key here is you must actually invest it. Other possible reasons to minimize the down payment would be if you have other loans with higher rates- then obviously use that money to pay down those loans before the car loan. All that being said, some dealers will give you cash back if you pay for the car outright. If you have this option, do the math and see where it lands. Most likely taking the cash back is going to be more attractive so you don't even have to hedge inflation at all. Tip: Make sure to negotiate the price of the car before you tell them how you are going to pay for it. (And during this process you can hint that you'll pay cash for it.)" }, { "docid": "351340", "title": "", "text": "In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions." }, { "docid": "221439", "title": "", "text": "When getting a car always start with your bank or credit union. They are very likely to offer better loan rate than the dealer. Because you start there you have a data point so you can tell if the dealer is giving you a good rate. Having the loan approved before going to the dealer allows you to negotiate the best deal for the purchase price for the car. When you are negotiating price, length of loan, down payment, and trade in it can get very confusing to determine if the deal is a good one. Sometimes you can also get a bigger rebate or discount because to the dealer you are paying cash. The general advice is that a lease for the average consumer is a bad deal. You are paying for the most expensive months, and at the end of the lease you don't have a car. With a loan you keep the car after you are done paying for it. Another reason to avoid the lease. It allows you to purchase a car that is two or three years old. These are the ones that just came off lease. I am not a car dealer, and I have never needed a work visa, but I think their concern is that there is a greater risk of you not being in the country for the entire period of the lease." } ]

[ { "docid": "108739", "title": "", "text": "You can pay with a cashiers check or personal check. You can even pay cash, or combine payment methods. However, in the USA if you give the dealership $10,000 or more in actual cash, they will be required to fill out a form 8300 with the IRS." } ]

[ { "docid": "126949", "title": "", "text": "I think you are a little confused. If you have 10.000€ in cash for a car, but you decide instead to invest that money and take out a loan for the car at 2,75% interest, you would have to withdraw/sell 178€ each month from your investment to make your loan payment. If you made exactly 2,75% on your investment, you would be left with 0€ in your investment when the loan was paid off. If your investment did better than 2,75%, you would come out ahead, and if your investment did worse than 2,75%, you would have lost money on your decision. Having said all that, I don't recommend borrowing money to buy a car, especially if you have that amount of cash set aside for the car. Here are some of the reasons: Sometimes people feel better about spending large amounts of money if they can pay it off over time, rather than spending it all at once. They tell themselves that they will come out ahead with their investments, or they will be earning more later, or some other story to make themselves feel better about overspending. If getting the loan is allowing you to spend more money on a car than you would spend if you were paying cash, then you will not come out ahead by investing; you would be better off to spend a smaller amount of money now. I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, you cannot get a guaranteed investment that pays 2,75%. So there will be risk involved; if the next year is a bad one for your investment, then your investment losses combined with your withdrawals for your car payments could empty your investment before the car is paid off. Conversely, by skipping the 2,75% loan and paying cash for your car, you have essentially made a guaranteed 2,75% on this money, comparatively speaking. I don't know what the going rate is for car loans where you are, but often car dealers will give you a low loan rate in exchange for a higher sales price. As a result, you might think that you can easily invest and beat the loan rate, but it is a false comparison because you overpaid for the car." }, { "docid": "45718", "title": "", "text": "\"I use online banking as much as possible and I think it may help you get closer to your goal. I see you want to know where the money goes and save time so it should work for you like it did for me. I used to charge everything or write checks and then pay a big visa bill. My problem was I never knew exactly how much I spent because neither Visa or check writing are record systems. They just generate transactions records. I made it a goal use online banking to match my spending to the available cash and ended up ok usually 9-10 months out of the year. I started with direct deposit of my paycheck. Each Saturday, I sit down and within a half hour, I've paid the bills for the week and know where I stand for the following week. Any new bill that comes in, I add it to online banking even if it's not a recurring expense. I also pull down cash from the ATM but just enough to allow me to do what I have to do. If it's more than $30 or $40 bucks, I use the debit card so that expense goes right to the online bank statement. My monthly bank statement gives me a single report with everything listed. Mortgage, utilities, car payment, cable bill, phone bill, insurance, newspaper, etc... It does not record these transactions in generic categories; they actually say Verizon or Comcast or Shop Rite. I found this serves as the only report I need to see what's happening with my budget. It may take a while to change to a plan like this one. but you'll now have a system that shows you in a single place where the money goes. Move all bills that are \"\"auto-pay\"\" to the online system and watch your Visa bill go down. The invested time is likely what you're doing now writing checks. Hope this helps.\"" }, { "docid": "347849", "title": "", "text": "First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing." }, { "docid": "321490", "title": "", "text": "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. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)" }, { "docid": "180295", "title": "", "text": "I am going to give advice that is slightly differently based on my own experiences. First, regarding the financing, I have found that the dealers do in fact have access to the best interest rates, but only after negotiating with a better financing offer from a bank. When I bought my current car, the dealer was offering somewhere around 3.3%, which I knew was way above the current industry standard and I knew I had good credit. So, like I did with my previous car and my wife's car, I went to local and national banks, came back with deals around 2.5 or 2.6%. When I told the dealer, they were able to offer 2.19%. So it's ok to go with the dealer's financing, just never take them at face value. Whatever they offer you and no matter how much they insist it's the best deal, never believe it! They can do better! With my first car, I had little credit history, similar to your situation, and interest rates were much higher then, like 6 - 8%. The dealer offered me 10%. I almost walked out the door laughing. I went to my own bank and they offered me 8%, which was still high, but better than 10%. Suddenly, the dealer could do 7.5% with a 0.25% discount if I auto-pay through my checking account. Down-payment wise, there is nothing wrong with a 35% down payment. When I purchased my current car, I put 50% down. All else being equal, the more cash down, the better off you'll be. The only issue is to weigh that down payment and interest rate against the cost of other debts you may have. If you have a 7% student loan and the car loan is only 3%, you're better off paying the minimum on the car and using your cash to pay down your student loan. Unless your student loan balance is significantly more than the 8k you need to finance (like a 20k or 30k loan). Also remember that a car is a depreciating asset. I pay off cars as fast as I can. They are terrible debt to have. A home can rise in value, offsetting a mortgage. Your education keeps you employed and employable and will certainly not make you dumber, so that is a win. But a car? You pay $15k for a car that will be worth $14k the next day and $10k a year from now. It's easy to get underwater with a car loan if the down payment is small, interest rate high, and the car loses value quickly. To make sure I answer your questions: Do you guys think it's a good idea to put that much down on the car? If you can afford it and it will not interfere with repayment of much higher interest debts, then yes. A car loan is a major liability, so if you can minimize the debt, you'll be better off. What interest rate is reasonable based on my credit score? I am not a banker, loan officer, or dealer, so I cannot answer this with much credibility. But given today's market, 2.5 - 4% seems reasonable. Do you think I'll get approved? Probably, but only one way to find out!" }, { "docid": "283917", "title": "", "text": "Its not a scam. The car dealership does not care how you pay for the car, just that you pay. If you come to them for a loan they will try and service you. If you come with cash, they will sell you a car and not try to talk you into financing. If you come with a check from another bank, they will happily accept it. I would try to work with Equifax or a local credit union to figure out what is going on. Somehow she probably had her credit frozen. Here are some really good things to mitigate this situation: Oh and make sure you do #1 and forget about financing cars ever again. I mean if you want to build wealth." }, { "docid": "261016", "title": "", "text": "\"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who \"\"dislike\"\" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations.\"" }, { "docid": "179527", "title": "", "text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle." }, { "docid": "152210", "title": "", "text": "\"A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't \"\"real money\"\" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an \"\"expense\"\" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly.\"" }, { "docid": "437182", "title": "", "text": "We aim to keep 6 months of expenses. The rationale is that its enough time to recover from most serious illnesses (that you can recover from) or a redundancy or pay for a large unexpected problem not covered by the insurance (e.g. the boiler dying). It also gives us enough time to reorganise finances if needed. For example we could get out of contracts (like mobile phones, sky TV), sell the car, and maybe even find a cheaper house if needed in that time. It will take a good chunk of time to build up that amount and it's worth considering how many commitments you have (kids, wife, mortgage, car...) as the fewer you have the less you need. If you have fewer commitments you can be comfortable with much less contingency. When I lived in rented accomodation and didn't run a car or have many possessions, I just maintained enough cash to cover my bills for about 6 weeks, this would give me enough time to find another job, and if I didn't get one I could always crash round a friend's house." }, { "docid": "248697", "title": "", "text": "Maybe there's more to this story, because as written, your sister seems, well, a little irrational. Is it possible that the bank will try to cheat you and demand that you pay a loan again that you've already paid off? Or maybe not deliberately cheat you, but make a mistake and lose track of the fact that you paid? Sure, it's POSSIBLE. But if you're going to agonize about that, what about all the other possible ways that someone could cheat you? What if you go to a store, hand over your cash for the purchase, and then the clerk insists that you never gave him any cash? What if you buy a car and it turns out to be stolen? What if you buy insurance and when you have a claim the insurance company refuses to pay? What if someone you've never met or even heard of before suddenly claims that you are the father of her baby and demands child support? Etc etc. Realistically, banks are fanatical about record-keeping. Their business is pretty much all about record-keeping. Mistakes like this are very rare. And a big business like a bank is unlikely to blatantly cheat you. They can and do make millions of dollars legally. Why should they break the law and risk paying huge fines and going to prison for a few hundred dollars? They may give you a lousy deal, like charge you outrageous overdraft fees and pay piddling interest on your deposit, but they're not going to lie about how much you owe. They just don't. I suggest that you not live your life in fear of all the might-be's. Take reasonable steps to protect yourself and get on with it. Read contracts before you sign, even if the other person gets impatient while you sit there reading. ESPECIALLY if the other person insists that you sign without reading. When you pay off a loan, you should get a piece of paper from the bank saying the loan has been paid. Stuff this piece of paper in a filing cabinet and keep it for years and years. Get a copy of your credit report periodically and make sure that there are no errors on it, like incorrect loan balances. I check mine once every year or two. Some people advise checking it every couple of months. It all depends how nervous you are and how much time you want to spend on it. Then get on with your life. Has your sister had some bad experience with loans in the past? Or has she never borrowed money and she's just confused about how it works? That's why I wonder if there's more to the story, if there's some basis for her fears." }, { "docid": "260146", "title": "", "text": "\"I've lived this decision, and from my \"\"anecdata\"\": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city. I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system). I live downtown. I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house). I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals. I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a \"\"named non-owner\"\" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI. It's always quoted higher. In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100. Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging. But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs. Not every weekend, but pretty close. But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year. I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years. Summary: Pull the trigger, do it :D\"" }, { "docid": "351340", "title": "", "text": "In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions." }, { "docid": "334654", "title": "", "text": "The best way to save on clothes is up to you. I have friends who save all year for two yearly shopping trips to update anything that may need updating at the time. By allowing themselves only two trips, they control the money spent. Bring it in cash and stop buying when you run out. On the other hand in my family we shop sales. When we determine that we need something we wait until we find a sale. When we see an exceptionally good sale on something we know we will need (basic work dress shoes, for example), we'll purchase it and save it until the existing item it is replacing has worn out. Our strategy is to know what we need and buy it when the price is right. We tend to wait on anything that isn't on sale until we can find the right item at a price we like, which sometimes means stretching the existing piece of clothing it is replacing until well after its prime. If you've got a list you're shopping from, you know what you need. The question becomes: how will you control your spending best? Carefully shopping sales and using coupons, or budgeting for a spree within limits?" }, { "docid": "269758", "title": "", "text": "The reason is, stores want customers to use cash. By giving us cash, we are more likely to use cash next time. I feel a little guilty when using my bank card at the store because I know I'm giving about 2-3% of the sale to the bank. Unless I don't really like where I'm shopping (ie Walmart), I try to use cash if I have it. I doubt these large stores pay extra for supplying the cash portion. They just need to keep the cash onhand. In other countries, do they not mind paying banks a percentage of each transaction? That's a huge loss for retailers. (I also heard tipping isn't popular in some countries, maybe the lack of regard for vendors is related somehow??) Oh, plus, it's a value added service. A customer is more likely to return to a store if they provide this service." }, { "docid": "362887", "title": "", "text": "\"Which of these categories are emergency funds meant to cover? Emergency funds are for emergencies, which to me means expenses that are unanticipated and can't be covered out of \"\"normal\"\" cash-flow. Oil changes are not an \"\"emergency\"\" and should be part of your normal budget. Car/house repairs and doctor visits might be an emergency depending on the severity and the urgency (e.g. do I need to fix this now or can I save up and fix it?) For known, predictable expenses that are infrequent (Christmas, birthdays, car insurance, home insurance/taxes if it's not part of your mortgage payment), I use an escrow account. I calculate how much I'll need for all of those things put together over the year and set aside a fixed amount each paycheck to ensure that I have enough to cover each item. You could do something similar for minor doctor visits, car repairs, etc. Estimate how much you might spend and set aside some money each month. If you find you're spending more than you thought, just increase the amount. You can use envelopes for each type of expense, have a separate checking account for those, whatever. The point is to set it aside and make sure you have enough left over to cover your known expenses. The whole point of an emergency fund is to be able to pay cash for emergencies rather than borrowing to pay them and dealing with interest, late fees, etc.\"" }, { "docid": "124258", "title": "", "text": "I still think it will be rather difficult. Best bet is to call around to the five or so closest dealers and express you are considering the car contingent on price (NOT PAYMENT). Ask for them to send you their best out-the-door price on a base model. Then when you get quotes from each of them, shop the lowest price around. Usually dealers will budge a few hundred bucks to beat other dealers. But a 2018 STI will be difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate a few grand under MSRP. Understand that the people that buy this car are not doing so because it is a great bargain. So dealers can usually push this car at or near MSRP. Lastly, do not set foot in a dealership until you have a firm out-the-door price. They will play sales tricks until you give up on negotiation and will pay anything just to get out of there. The only time you should go to the location is to sign papers and drive away with the car. Do not worry about being nice and congenial with the salesperson. This advice got me my current vehicle at about 15% below the lowest True Car estimate. I don't claim this is the best advice out there but it works." }, { "docid": "110046", "title": "", "text": "Everybody on the car title will need to participate in the selling process. The person who is buying the car will need everybody to sign the paperwork so that nobody months later tries to say they never agreed to sell the car. The money will have to be sent to the lender to pay off the rest of the loan. If the money isn't enough to pay off the loan everybody will have to decide how the extra money will be sent to the lender. This will have to be done as part of the selling process because the lender doesn't want you to sell the car and keep the cash. Once the car is gone so is the collateral and they can't take it back if you miss payments. If the cousin is too far away to participate in the selling of the car, you may need the buyer and the lender to tell you how to proceeded. If you are selling at a dealership they will know what documents and signatures will be needed, the bank will also know what to do. If the loan is almost paid off it may be easier to pay the loan first, and then get the title without the lenders name before trying to sell it." }, { "docid": "351312", "title": "", "text": "The optimal down payment is 0% IF your interest rate is also 0%. As the interest rate increases, so does the likelihood of the better option being to pay for the car outright. Note that this is probably a binary choice. In other words, depending on the rate you will pay, you should either put 0% down, or 100% down. The interesting question is what formula should you use to determine which way to go? Obviously if you can invest at a higher return than the rate you pay on the car, you would still want to put 0% down. The same goes for inflation, and you can add these two numbers together. For example, if you estimate 2% inflation plus 1% guaranteed investment, then as long as the rate on your car is less than 3%, you would want to minimize the amount you put down. The key here is you must actually invest it. Other possible reasons to minimize the down payment would be if you have other loans with higher rates- then obviously use that money to pay down those loans before the car loan. All that being said, some dealers will give you cash back if you pay for the car outright. If you have this option, do the math and see where it lands. Most likely taking the cash back is going to be more attractive so you don't even have to hedge inflation at all. Tip: Make sure to negotiate the price of the car before you tell them how you are going to pay for it. (And during this process you can hint that you'll pay cash for it.)" } ]

[ { "docid": "590082", "title": "", "text": "Ask the dealer to drive to the bank with you, if they really want cash." } ]

[ { "docid": "146204", "title": "", "text": "There is economic value added to the marketplace, by having many investors trading stocks. The stock market itself can be thought of as a tool which provides additional 'liquidity' to the marketplace. Liquidity is the ease with which you can convert your assets into cash (for example, how quickly could you sell your car if you needed money to pay a medical bill?). Without a stock market, funds would be very illiquid - an investor would likely need to post advertisements to have other people consider buying his/her shares. Until the match between a buyer and seller is found, the person with the shares can't use the cash they need. On the other side of the transaction, are people who have an appetite for risk. This means that, for various reasons, they are willing to take on more risk than you, if it pays off on average (they are young [and have many years of salary earnings in front of them], or they are rich [can afford to lose money sometimes if it pays off on average]). Consider this like a transaction between your insurance broker - you don't want to pay for a new car if you get in an accident, and you're willing to pay total annual premiums that, on average, will cost more than that same car over time. You don't want the risk, but the insurance company does - that's how they make money. So by participating in any marketplace, you are providing value, in the form of liquidity, and by allowing the market to allocate risk to those willing to take it on." }, { "docid": "261016", "title": "", "text": "\"This is second hand information as I am not a millionaire, but I work with such people everyday and have an understanding of how they handle cash: The wealthy people don't. Simple. Definitely not if they don't have to. Cash is a tool to them that they use only if they get benefit of it being a cash transaction (one of my friends is a re-seller and he gets a 10% discount from suppliers for settling lines using cash). Everything else they place on a line of credit. For people who \"\"dislike\"\" credit cards and pay using ATM or debit cards might actually have a very poor understanding of leverage. I assure you, the wealthy people have a very good understanding of it! Frankly, wealthy people pay less for everything, but they deserve it because of the extreme amount of leverage they have built for themselves. Their APRs are low, their credit limits are insanely high, they have longer billing periods and they get spoiled by credit card vendors all the time. For example, when you buy your groceries at Walmart, you pay at least a 4% markup because that's the standardized cost of processing credit cards. Even if you paid in cash! A wealthy person uses his credit card to pay for the same but earns the same percentage amount in cash back, points and what not. I am sure littleadv placed the car purchase on his credit card for similar reasons! The even more wealthy have their groceries shipped to their houses and if they pay cash I won't be surprised if they actually end up paying much less for fresh (organic) vegetables than what equivalent produce at Walmart would get them! I apologize for not being able to provide citations for these points I make as they are personal observations.\"" }, { "docid": "283917", "title": "", "text": "Its not a scam. The car dealership does not care how you pay for the car, just that you pay. If you come to them for a loan they will try and service you. If you come with cash, they will sell you a car and not try to talk you into financing. If you come with a check from another bank, they will happily accept it. I would try to work with Equifax or a local credit union to figure out what is going on. Somehow she probably had her credit frozen. Here are some really good things to mitigate this situation: Oh and make sure you do #1 and forget about financing cars ever again. I mean if you want to build wealth." }, { "docid": "421743", "title": "", "text": "\"never carry a balance on a credit card. there is almost always a cheaper way to borrow money. the exception to that rule is when you are offered a 0% promotion on a credit card, but even then watch out for cash advance fees and how payments are applied (typically to promotional balances first). paying interest on daily spending is a bad idea. generally, the only time you should pay interest is on a home loan, car loan or education loan. basically that's because those loans can either allow you to reduce an expense (e.g. apartment rent, taxi fair), or increase your income (by getting a better job). you can try to make an argument about the utility of a dollar, but all sophistry aside you are better off investing than borrowing under normal circumstances. that said, using a credit card (with no annual fee) can build credit for a future car or home loan. the biggest advantage of a credit card is cash back. if you have good credit you can get a credit card that offers at least 1% cash back on every purchase. if you don't have good credit, using a credit card with no annual fee can be a good way to build credit until you can get approved for a 2% card (e.g. citi double cash). additionally, technically, you can get close to 10% cash back by chasing sign up bonuses. however, that requires applying for new cards frequently and keeping track of minimum spend etc. credit cards also protect you from fraud. if someone uses your debit card number, you can be short on cash until your bank fixes it. but if someone uses your credit card number, you can simply dispute the charge when you get the bill. you don't have to worry about how to make rent after an unexpected 2k$ charge. side note: it is a common mis-conception that credit card issuers only make money from cardholder interest and fees. card issuers make a lot of revenue from \"\"interchange fees\"\" paid by merchants every time you use your card. some issuers (e.g. amex) make a majority of their revenue from merchants.\"" }, { "docid": "547558", "title": "", "text": "\"Just to argue the other side, 1.49% is pretty low for a loan. Let's say you have the $15k cash but decide to get the car loan at 1.49%. Then you take the rest of the money and invest it in something that pays a ~4% dividend (a utility stock, etc.). You're making money on the difference. Of course, there's no guarantee that the underlying stock won't drop in value, but it might go up, too. And you'll likely pay income tax on the dividends. Still, you have a good chance of making money by taking the loan. So I will argue that there are scenarios where taking advantage of a low interest rate loan can be \"\"good\"\" as an investment opportunity when the risk/reward is acceptable. Be careful, though. There's nothing wrong with paying cash for a car!\"" }, { "docid": "164702", "title": "", "text": "\"Your son is in the right. But he broke the \"\"unwritten\"\" rules, which is why the car dealer is upset. Basically, cars are sold in the United States at a breakeven price. The car company makes ALL its money on the financing. If everyone bought \"\"all cash,\"\" the car companies would not be profitable. No one expected anyone, least of all your son, a \"\"young person,\"\" to pay \"\"all cash.\"\" When he did, they lost all the profit on the deal. On the other hand, they signed a contract, your son met all the FORMAL requirements, and if there was an \"\"understanding\"\" (an assumption, actually), that the car was supposed to be financed, your son was not part of it. Good for him. And if necessary, you should be prepared to back him up on court.\"" }, { "docid": "321490", "title": "", "text": "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. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)" }, { "docid": "126949", "title": "", "text": "I think you are a little confused. If you have 10.000€ in cash for a car, but you decide instead to invest that money and take out a loan for the car at 2,75% interest, you would have to withdraw/sell 178€ each month from your investment to make your loan payment. If you made exactly 2,75% on your investment, you would be left with 0€ in your investment when the loan was paid off. If your investment did better than 2,75%, you would come out ahead, and if your investment did worse than 2,75%, you would have lost money on your decision. Having said all that, I don't recommend borrowing money to buy a car, especially if you have that amount of cash set aside for the car. Here are some of the reasons: Sometimes people feel better about spending large amounts of money if they can pay it off over time, rather than spending it all at once. They tell themselves that they will come out ahead with their investments, or they will be earning more later, or some other story to make themselves feel better about overspending. If getting the loan is allowing you to spend more money on a car than you would spend if you were paying cash, then you will not come out ahead by investing; you would be better off to spend a smaller amount of money now. I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, you cannot get a guaranteed investment that pays 2,75%. So there will be risk involved; if the next year is a bad one for your investment, then your investment losses combined with your withdrawals for your car payments could empty your investment before the car is paid off. Conversely, by skipping the 2,75% loan and paying cash for your car, you have essentially made a guaranteed 2,75% on this money, comparatively speaking. I don't know what the going rate is for car loans where you are, but often car dealers will give you a low loan rate in exchange for a higher sales price. As a result, you might think that you can easily invest and beat the loan rate, but it is a false comparison because you overpaid for the car." }, { "docid": "332335", "title": "", "text": "You can simply use them to pay in a supermarket or anywhere else. Just give them the card and say ‘put 1.23$ on this one please, and the rest I pay cash‘ or whatever. They might be annoyed when you have really many, but you can use up one every time you shop easily. For some cards, you do not even have to know the remaining amount, just say use it up. Note that supermarkets are preferable because they are typically used to that, and know how to handle it." }, { "docid": "252859", "title": "", "text": "Considering I'm putting 30% down and having my father cosign is there any chance I would be turned down for a loan on a $100k car? According to BankRate, the average credit score needed to buy a new car is 714, but they also show average interest rates at 6.39% for new-car loans to people with credit scores in the 601-660 range. High income certainly helps offset credit score to some extent. Not every bank/dealership does things the same way. Being self-employed you'd most likely be required to show 2 years of tax returns, and they'd use those as a basis for your income rather than whatever you have made recently. If using a co-signer, their income matters. Another key factor is debt to income ratio, if too much of someone's income is already spoken for by other debts a lender will shy away. So, yes, there's a chance, given all the information we don't know and the variability with lender policies, that you could be turned down for a car loan. How should I go about this? If you're set on pursuing the car loan, just go talk to some lenders. You'll want to shop around for a good rate anyway, so no need to speculate just go find out. Include the dealership as a potential financing option, they can have great rates. Personally, I'd get a much cheaper car. Your insurance premium on a 100k car will be quite high due to your age. You might be rightly confident in your earning potential, but nothing is guaranteed, situations can change wildly in short order. A new car is not a good investment or a value-retaining asset, so why bother going into debt for one if you don't have to? If you buy something in cash now, you could upgrade in a few years without financing if your earning prediction holds and would save quite a bit in car insurance and interest over the years between." }, { "docid": "440806", "title": "", "text": "In many (most?) cases, luxury cars are leased rather than purchased, so the payments on even an expensive car might not be as high as you'd expect. For simplicity, take a $100,000 car. If you were to buy that in cash or do a standard five-year auto loan, that would be incredibly expensive for all but the wealthiest of people. But a lease is different. When you lease a car, you are financing the car's depreciation over the lease term. So, let's suppose that you're signing up for a three-year lease. The car manufacturer will make an estimate of what that car will be worth when you bring it back in three years (this is called the residual value). If this number is $80,000, that means the lessee is only financing the $20,000 difference between the car's price and its residual value after three years - rather than the full $100,000 MSRP. At the end of the lease, he or she just turns the car back in. Luxury cars are actually especially amenable to leasing because they have excellent brand power - just because of the name on the hood, there are many people who would be happy to pay a lot for a three-year-old Mercedes or BMW. With a mid- or low-range car, the brand is not as powerful and used cars consequentially have a lower residual value (as a percentage of the MSRP) than luxury cars. So, don't look at an $80,000 luxury car and assume that the owner has paying for the entire $80,000." }, { "docid": "516631", "title": "", "text": "I might be missing something, but I always understood that leasing is about managing cash-flow in a business. You have a fixed monthly out-going as opposed to an up-front payment. My accountant (here in Germany) recommended: pay cash, take a loan (often the manufactures offer good rates) or lease - in that order. The leasing company has to raise the cash from somewhere and they don't want to make a loss on the deal. They will probably know better than I how to manage that and will therefore be calculating in the projected resale value at the end of the leasing period. I can't see how an electric car would make any difference here. These people are probably better informed about the resale value of any type of car than I am. My feeling is to buy using a loan from the manufacturer. The rates are often good and I have also got good deals on insurance as a part of that package. Here in Germany the sales tax (VAT) can be immediately claimed back in full when the loan deal is signed." }, { "docid": "574691", "title": "", "text": "Yes, this is fine: You can save up to £20,000 in one type of account or split the allowance across some or all of the other types. You can only pay £4,000 into your Lifetime ISA in a tax year ... Example You could save £11,000 in a cash ISA, £2,000 in a stocks and shares ISA, £3,000 in an innovative finance ISA and £4,000 in a Lifetime ISA in one tax year. https://www.gov.uk/individual-savings-accounts/how-isas-work You might want to consider whether it is wise to be fully invested in shares. If you're going to have to dip into them for things like holidays and a car, you're taking a risk that you might have to sell when the market is low. As a basic rate taxpayer, you have a £1 000 personal savings allowance. You don't need to chase the tax break with a cash ISA, which often have poor rates. However, you should consider keeping some of your savings in cash, for example in a current account that pays decent interest on the balance." }, { "docid": "219033", "title": "", "text": "It is possible to not use checks in the US. I personally use a credit card for almost everything and often have no cash in my wallet at all. I never carry checks with me. If we wanted to, we could pay all of our monthly bills without checks as well, and many people do this. 30 years ago, grocery stores didn't generally accept credit cards, so it was cash or check, though most other kinds of stores and restaurants did. Now, the only stores that I have encountered in years that do not accept credit cards are a local chicken restaurant, and the warehouse-shopping store Costco. (Costco accepts its own credit card, but not Mastercard or Visa.) Still, we do pay the majority of our monthly bills via check, and it would not be shocking to see someone paying for groceries with a check. I can't name the last time I saw someone write a check at a store exactly, but I've never seen any cashier or other patrons wonder what a check-writer was trying to do. Large transactions, like buying a car or house, would still use checks -- probably cashier's or certified checks and not personal checks, though." }, { "docid": "66122", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely do not pay off the car if you aren't planning to keep it. The amount of equity that you have from a trade in vehicle will always be a variable when negotiating a new car purchase. By applying cash (a hard asset) to increase your equity, you are trading a fixed amount for an unknown, variable amount. You are also moving from a position of more certainty for a position of less certainty. You gain nothing by paying off the car, whereas the dealer can negotiate away a larger piece of the equity in the vehicle." }, { "docid": "183311", "title": "", "text": "I understand, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing; I'm just asking how we know this. It's one thing if it's a logical deduction you've made, but it's another if there's direct objective evidence. Do these statistics pertain to all car sales or just factory car sales? The car I own today is the car I've owned the longest, but it's not because I can't afford to buy another one, it's because I have absolutely no reason to. My car was made in 2000; it has 115k miles on it. I could write a long list of things that are still performing just as adequately as they did when it was new, and how aside from being somewhat less powerful it doesn't actually do anything worse than comparable new cars; I'll spare you. :) Cars in 1970 were never expected to be driven past 100k miles without major service work, including an engine and transmission overhaul. Many cars well into the late 70s didn't even come with that many digits on the odometer. The economic conditions you mention, including the astonishing transfer of wealth between classes, are not good signs and it obviously needs to be reversed or this country is going to be a really shitty place to live soon. And hell yes I believe it's affecting car sales. But I'm really not convinced it's the main reason car sales peaked 40 years ago. Housing sales only peaked a few years ago, and both markets have screwed themselves over-issuing credit, albeit in different ways. Point is, you don't need to be able to afford a car when you can get a loan practically at the push of a button; Americans don't think in terms of what something costs, they think in terms of what it costs *per month*. Income shrinkage has been allowed to happen because people have been allowed to spend money they don't have. I know people living paycheck-to-paycheck who spend $150 - $250 per month on just data. They also have $10k's of revolving credit card debt and, even worse, $10k's in student loans. $250 per month won't save up for a new Cadillac anytime soon, but it *will* put you into a Cadillac if you don't mind having spent $63k on a $38k car by the time your loan matures. (Edit: those numbers are pretty exaggerated, $250/mo. wouldn't get you a Cadillac until it was several years old. You'd still end up paying several thousand more than if you'd paid cash, though... the point is that our economy is floating on credit, and this has allowed rampant overspending and living above means in the average household). You see what I'm saying? All other factors being equal car sales should have peaked a few years ago, or at least in the late 90s during the (first?) dot com bubble. There was *far* more spending power out there - not income, but spending power." }, { "docid": "108560", "title": "", "text": "If a high mileage car has been thoroughly maintained with a credible service history, there is no reason to discard the vehicle because of a hypothetical future expense. Considering the low value of the vehicle, it would be prudent to also lower the cost of the repairs. U.S. car dealerships have a well-known reputation for charging significantly higher repair rates than independent repair shops. Lower the cost of the repairs: brakes can be done at independent shops for half what the dealer quoted. Sears can install a set of 4 tires on an '04 Accord for $331 out the door. It makes no financial sense to purchase costly repairs for a low-cost automobile when economical alternatives are available." }, { "docid": "351340", "title": "", "text": "In my opinion, every person, regardless of his or her situation, should be keeping track of their personal finances. In addition, I believe that everyone, regardless of their situation, should have some sort of budget/spending plan. For many people, it is tempting to ignore the details of their finances and not worry about it. After all, the bank knows how much money I have, right? I get a statement from them each month that shows what I have spent, and I can always go to the bank's website and find out how much money I have, right? Unfortunately, this type of thinking can lead to several different problems. Overspending. In olden days, it was difficult to spend more money than you had. Most purchases were made in cash, so if your wallet had cash in it, you could spend it, and when your wallet was empty, you were required to stop spending. In this age of credit and electronic transactions, this is no longer the case. It is extremely easy to spend money that you don't yet have, and find yourself in debt. Debt, of course, leads to interest charges and future burdens. Unpreparedness for the future. Without a plan, it is difficult to know if you have saved up enough for large future expenses. Will you have enough money to pay the water bill that only shows up once every three months or the property tax bill that only shows up once a year? Will you have enough money to pay to fix your car when it breaks? Will you have enough money to replace your car when it is time? How about helping out your kids with college tuition, or funding your retirement? Without a plan, all of these are very difficult to manage without proper accounting. Anxiety. Not having a clear picture of your finances can lead to anxiety. This can happen whether or not you are actually overspending, and whether or not you have enough saved up to cover future expenses, because you simply don't know if you have adequately covered your situation or not. Making a plan and doing the accounting necessary to ensure you are following your plan can take the worry out of your finances. Fear of spending. There was an interesting question from a user last year who was not at all in trouble with his finances, yet was always afraid to spend any money, because he didn't have a budget/spending plan in place. If you spend money on a vacation, are you putting your property tax bill in jeopardy? With a good budget in place, you can know for sure whether or not you will have enough money to pay your future expenses and can spend on something else today. This can all be done with or without the aid of software, but like many things, a computer makes the job easier. A good personal finance program will do two things: Keeps track of your spending and balances, apart from your bank. The bank can only show you things that have cleared the bank. If you set up future payments (outside of the bank), or you write a check that has not been cashed yet, or you spend money on a credit card and have not paid the bill yet, these will not be reflected in your bank balance online. However, if you manually enter these things into your own personal finance program, you can see how much money you actually have available to spend. Lets you plan for future spending. The spending plan, or budget, lets you assign a job to every dollar that you own. By doing this, you won't spend rent money at the bar, and you won't spend the car insurance money on a vacation. I've written before about the details on how some of these software packages work. To answer your question about double-entry accounting: Some software packages do use true double-entry accounting (GnuCash, Ledger) and some do not (YNAB, EveryDollar, Mvelopes). In my opinion, double-entry accounting is an unnecessary complication for personal finances. If you don't already know what double-entry accounting is, stick with one of the simpler solutions." }, { "docid": "418801", "title": "", "text": "There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal. When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item. By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest. You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments. You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong. Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail. As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account. A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash." } ]

[ { "docid": "127353", "title": "", "text": "The very first time I bought a new car I wrote out a personal check for $5000 (this was a looong time ago!). And got a call from the sales person that he had called the bank and was told that I did not have that much money in my checking account! I explained that I had just that day transferred money from savings to checking. The sales person accepted that and there was never a problem after that." } ]

[ { "docid": "108560", "title": "", "text": "If a high mileage car has been thoroughly maintained with a credible service history, there is no reason to discard the vehicle because of a hypothetical future expense. Considering the low value of the vehicle, it would be prudent to also lower the cost of the repairs. U.S. car dealerships have a well-known reputation for charging significantly higher repair rates than independent repair shops. Lower the cost of the repairs: brakes can be done at independent shops for half what the dealer quoted. Sears can install a set of 4 tires on an '04 Accord for $331 out the door. It makes no financial sense to purchase costly repairs for a low-cost automobile when economical alternatives are available." }, { "docid": "321490", "title": "", "text": "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. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)" }, { "docid": "347849", "title": "", "text": "First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing." }, { "docid": "552792", "title": "", "text": "\"Aside from the calculations of \"\"how much you save through reducing interest\"\", you have two different types of loan here. The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in \"\"houses\"\", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of \"\"paying by installments\"\" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to \"\"get the $11,000 back\"\" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover \"\"normal emergencies\"\" without having to take this sort of action, but \"\"abnormal emergencies\"\" do sometimes happen!\"" }, { "docid": "381341", "title": "", "text": "\"Banks often offer cash to people who open savings accounts in order to drive new business. Their gain is pretty much as you think, to grow their asset base. A survey released in 2008 by UK-based Age Concern declared that only 16% of the British population have ever switched their banks‚ while 45% of marriages now end in divorce. Yip, till death do most part. In the US, similar analysis is pointing to a decline in people moving banks from the typical rate of 15% annually. If people are unwilling to change banks then how much more difficult for online brokers to get customers to switch? TD Ameritrade is offering you 30 days commission-free and some cash (0.2% - 0.4% depending on the funds you invest). Most people - especially those who use the opportunity to buy and hold - won't make much money for them, but it only takes a few more aggressive traders for them to gain overall. For financial institutions the question is straightforward: how much must they pay you to overcome your switching cost of changing institutions? If that number is sufficiently smaller than what they feel they can make in profits on having your business then they will pay. EDIT TO ELABORATE: The mechanism by which any financial institution makes money by offering cash to customers is essentially one of the \"\"law of large numbers\"\". If all you did is transfer in, say, $100,000, buy an ETF within the 30-day window (or any of the ongoing commission-free ones) and hold, then sell after a few years, they will probably lose money on you. I imagine they expect that on a large number of people taking advantage of this offer. Credit card companies are no different. More than half of people pay their monthly credit balance without incurring any interest charges. They get 30 days of credit for free. Everyone else makes the company a fortune. TD Ameritrade's fees are quite comprehensive outside of this special offer. Besides transactional commissions, their value-added services include subscription fees, administration fees, transaction fees, a few extra-special value-added services and, then, when you wish to cash out and realise your returns, an outbound transfer fee. However, you're a captured market. Since most people won't change their online brokers any more often than they'd change their bank, TD Ameritrade will be looking to offer you all sorts of new services and take commission on all of it. At most they spend $500-$600 to get you as a customer, or, to get you to transfer a lot more cash into their funds. And they get to keep you for how long? Ten years, maybe more? You think they might be able to sell you a few big-ticket items in the interim? Maybe interest you in some subscription service? This isn't grocery shopping. They can afford to think long-term.\"" }, { "docid": "152210", "title": "", "text": "\"A $1 note and four quarters are both real money, but how (and when) they become real money is different. The important thing is that the Fed's stockpile of cash that it gets from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing isn't \"\"real money\"\" (i.e. M0) yet. That cash is only used for fulfilling withdrawals from reserve accounts. You can't use it to buy a car, or a house, or to pay Janet Yellen's salary...no one, not even Janet, can use even a single dollar to buy a Diet Coke. In other words, it's not really an asset. Or a liability. Or anything but a stack of paper in the Fed's vaults that looks astonishingly like money, but isn't. The upside to this is that when the BEP makes a delivery of fresh bills to the Fed, or when the Fed destroys old, ratty bills that aren't usable anymore, the Fed's balance sheet doesn't change. That's good! Those are practical considerations, not financial ones. The downside is that there's nothing on the asset side of the sheet to explain how the Fed's liability to a bank is reduced when the bank makes a cash withdrawal from its reserve account. So the Fed balances it's balance sheet by recording an increase in a different liability: the cash in circulation. Kinda like transferring the balance on a credit card: you're paying down one liability by increasing another one. It looks a bit silly, but less silly than recording the destruction of old bills as an \"\"expense\"\" of the face value of the bills. Coins, on the other hand, become money as soon as the Treasury gets them from the Mint. If they wanted to, they could pay their employees' salaries by ordering coins from the Mint for cheap, giving them to their employees at face value, and reaping fat profits as a result. In fact, that's pretty much exactly what they do: when someone wants quarters, the Treasury mints them at less than face value and then sells them at face value. In practice the Fed does all of this buying and then distributes the coins according to demand. The important thing is that this bunch of coins is not like the Fed's stockpile of bills. It's already real money, and therefore shows up as an asset. Not much. If the Fed bought coins at the cheaper price from the Mint instead, stockpiled them like they stockpile bills, then distributed them as usual, the extra profit just goes to the Treasury anyway, like all the Fed's profit does. However, as things are, the Fed's purchases of coins are recorded on the Fed's balance sheet at face value, which is kinda silly.\"" }, { "docid": "285033", "title": "", "text": "\"Here I thought I would not ever answer a question on this site and boom first ten minutes. First and foremost I am in the automotive industry, specifically one of our core competencies is finance department management consulting and the sales process both for the sale of the care as well as the financial transaction. First and foremost new vehicle gross profits are nowhere near 20% for the dealership. In an entry level vehicle like say a Toyota Corolla there is only a few hundreds of dollars in markup from invoice to M.S.R.P. There is also something called holdback that dealers get for achieving certain goals such as sales volume. These are usually pretty easy to hit. As a matter of fact I have never heard of a dealer not getting the hold back on a deal. This hold back is there to cover overhead for the car, the cost of getting it ready to sell, having a lot to park it on, making it ready for delivery, offset some of the cost of sales labor etc. Most dealerships consider the holdback portion of the invoice to not be part of the deal when it comes to negotiations. Certain brands such as KIA and Chrysler have something called \"\"Dealer Cash\"\" these payouts are usually stair stepped according to volume and vary by dealer, location, past history, how the guys at the factory feel that day and any number of combinations. Then there is CSI or Customer Service Index payments, these payments are usually made every 1/4 are on the Parts Statement not the Sales Doc and while they effect the dealers bottom line they almost never affect the sales managers or sales persons payroll so they are not considered a part of the cost of the car. They are however extremely important to the dealer and this is why after you have your new car they want you to bring in your survey for a free oil change or something. IF you are going to give a bad survey they want to throw it away and not send it in, if you are going to give a good survey they want to make sure you fill it out correctly. This is because lets say they ask you on a scale of 1-10 how was your sales person and you put a 9 that is a failing score. Dumb I know but that is how every factory CSI score system I have seen worked. According to NADA the average New Vehicle gross profit including hold back and dealer cash is around $1000.00. No where near 20%. Dealerships would love it if they made 20% on your new F250 Supercrew Diesel at around $50,000.00. One last thing there is something on the invoice called Wholesale Finance Reserve. This is the amount of money the factory forwards to the Dealership to offset the cost of financing vehicle on the floor plan so they can have it for you to look at before you buy. This is usually equal to around 3 months of interest and while you might buy a vehicle that has been on the lot for 2 days they have plenty that have been there much longer so this equals out in a fair to middling run store. General Mangers that know what they are doing can make this really pad their net profit to statement. On to incentives, there are basically 3 kinds. Cash to customer in the form of rebates, Dealer Cash in the form of incentives to dealerships based on volume or the undesirability of a vehicle, and incentive rates or Subvented leases. The rates are pretty self explanatory as they advertised as such (example 0% for 60 Months). Subvented Leased are harder to figure out and usually not disclosed as they are hard to explain and also a source of increased profit. Subvented leases are usually powered by lower cost of money called a money factor (think of it as an interest rate) that is discounted from the lease company or a subsidized residual. Subsidized residuals are virtually verboten on domestic vehicles due to their poor resell values. A subsidized residual works like this, you buy a Toyota Camry and the ALG (automotive lease guide) says it has a residual at 36 months of 48%. Well Toyota Motor Credit says we will give you a subvented residual of 60% basically subsidizing a 2% increase in residual. Since they do not expect to be able to sell the car at auction for that amount they have to set aside the 2% as a future expense. What does this mean to you, it means a lower payment. Also a good rule of thumb if you are told a money factor by your salesperson to figure out what the interest rate is just multiply it by 2400. So if a money factor is give of .00345 you know your actual interest rate is a little bit lower than 8.28% (illustration purposes only money factors are much lower than that right now). So how does this save you money well a lease is basically calculated by multiplying the MSRP by the residual and then subtracting that amount from the \"\"Capitalized Cost\"\" which is the Price paid for the car - trade in + payoff + TT&L-Rebate-Down Payment. That is the depreciation. Then you divide that number by the term of the loan and you have the depreciation amount. So if you have 20K CC and 10K R your D = 10K / 36 = 277 monthly payment. For the rest of the monthly payment you add (I think been a long time since I did this with out a computer) the Residual plus the CC for $30,000 * MF of .00345 = 107 for a total payment of 404 ish. This is not completely accurate but you can use it to make sure a salesperson/finance person is not trying to do one thing and say another as so often happens on leases. 0% how the heck do they make money at that, well its simple. First in 2008 the Fed made all the \"\"Captive\"\" lenders into actual banks instead of whatever they were before. So now they have access to the Fed's discounting window which with todays monetary policies make it almost free money. In the past these lenders had to go through all kinds of hoops to raise funds and securitize loans even for super prime credit. Those days are essentially over. Now they get their short term money just like Bank of America does. Eventually they still bundle these loans and sell them. So in the short term YOU pay for the 0% by giving up part or all of your rebate. This is really important DO NOT GIVE up your rebate for 0% unless it makes sense to do so. When you can get the money at 2.5% and get a $7000.00 rebate (customer cash) on that F250 or 0% take the cash. First of all make the finance guy/gal show you the the difference in total cost they can do do this using the federal truth in lending disclosures on a finance contract. Secondly how long will you keep the vehicle? If you come out ahead by say $1500 by taking the lower rate but you usually trade out every three years this is not going to work. Also and this is important if you are involved in a situation with a total loss like a stolen car or even worse a bad wreck before the breakeven point you lose that price break. Finally on judging what is right for you, just know that future value of the vehicle on for resell or trade-in will take into effect all of these past rebates and value the car accordingly. So if a vehicle depreciates 20% a year for the first 3 years the starting point will essentially be $7000.00 less than you actually paid, using rough numbers. How does this help the dealers and car companies? Well while a dealer struggles to make money on new cars the factory makes all of their money on the new cars and the new car financing. While your individual loan might lose money that money is offset by the loss of rebate and I think Ford does actually pay Ford Motor Credit Company the difference in the rate. The most important thing is what happens later FMCC now has 2500 loans with people with perfect credit. They can now use those loans to budle with people with not so perfect credit that they financed at 12%-18% and buy that money with interest rates in the 2%-3% range. Well that is a hell of a lot of profit. 'How does it help the dealership, well the more super prime credit they have in their portfolio the more subprime credit the banks will buy for them. This means they have more loans originated that are more profitable for them. Say you come in for the 0% but have 590 credit score, they get FMCC to buy the deal because they have a good portfolio and you win because the dealer gets to buy the money at say 9% and sell it to you at say 12% making the spread. You win there because you actually qualified for a rate of around 18% with a subprime company like Santander or Capital One (yes that capital one) so you save a ton on your overall cost of the car. Any dealership that is half way well run makes as much or money in the finance and insurance office than the rest of the dealership. When you factor in what a good F&I Director can do to get deals done with favorable terms that really goes up. Think about that the guys sitting a desk drinking coffee making more than the service department guys all put together. Well that was long winded but there I broke down the car business for whoever read this far.\"" }, { "docid": "268835", "title": "", "text": "I don't think it's all or none. First, 15 year mortgages are sub-3% right now, even for an investment property you'd get under 4%. shop around, do the math, a 1% drop is $1000 a year to start, nothing to sneeze at. Don't let the tax tail wag the decision dog. If you could invest the $100K at a taxable 5.5% in this economy, you would. In this case, that's your return on prepayments on this mortgage. Personally, I'd like to see a refinance and pay down of principal so the cash flow is at least positive. Beyond that, you need to decide how much cash you're comfortable having or not having in savings. I'd also consider when to start investing long term, in equities. (low cost ETFs is what I prefer)." }, { "docid": "110046", "title": "", "text": "Everybody on the car title will need to participate in the selling process. The person who is buying the car will need everybody to sign the paperwork so that nobody months later tries to say they never agreed to sell the car. The money will have to be sent to the lender to pay off the rest of the loan. If the money isn't enough to pay off the loan everybody will have to decide how the extra money will be sent to the lender. This will have to be done as part of the selling process because the lender doesn't want you to sell the car and keep the cash. Once the car is gone so is the collateral and they can't take it back if you miss payments. If the cousin is too far away to participate in the selling of the car, you may need the buyer and the lender to tell you how to proceeded. If you are selling at a dealership they will know what documents and signatures will be needed, the bank will also know what to do. If the loan is almost paid off it may be easier to pay the loan first, and then get the title without the lenders name before trying to sell it." }, { "docid": "529123", "title": "", "text": "\"There's two scenarios: the loan accrues interest on the remaining balance, or the total interest was computed ahead of time and your payments were averaged over x years so your payments are always the same. The second scenarios is better for the bank, so guess what you probably have... In the first scenario, I would pay it off to avoid paying interest. (Unless there is a compelling reason to keep the cash available for something else, and you don't mind paying interest) In the second case, you're going to pay \"\"interest over x years\"\" as computed when you bought the car no matter how quickly you pay it off, so take your time. (If you pay it earlier, it's like paying interest that would not have actually accrued, since you're paying it off faster than necessary) If you pay it off, I'm not sure if it would \"\"close\"\" the account, your credit history might show the account as being paid, which is a good thing.\"" }, { "docid": "129350", "title": "", "text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals." }, { "docid": "179527", "title": "", "text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle." }, { "docid": "346042", "title": "", "text": "When you pay cash for a car, you don't always necessarily need to pay cash. You just aren't using credit or a loan is all. A few options you have are: Obviously no dealer expects anyone to just have the cash laying around for a car worth a few thousand dollars, nor would you bother going to your bank or credit union for the cash. You can simply get a cashier's check made out for the amount. Note that dealers may not accept personal checks as they may bounce. After negotiations at the dealer, you would explain you're paying cash, likely pay a deposit (depending on the price of the car, but $500 would probably be enough. Again, the deposit can be a check or bank deposit), and then come back later on with a cashier's check, or deposit into a bank account. You would be able to do this later that day or within a few days, but since you've purchased a new car you would probably want to return ASAP!" }, { "docid": "332335", "title": "", "text": "You can simply use them to pay in a supermarket or anywhere else. Just give them the card and say ‘put 1.23$ on this one please, and the rest I pay cash‘ or whatever. They might be annoyed when you have really many, but you can use up one every time you shop easily. For some cards, you do not even have to know the remaining amount, just say use it up. Note that supermarkets are preferable because they are typically used to that, and know how to handle it." }, { "docid": "547558", "title": "", "text": "\"Just to argue the other side, 1.49% is pretty low for a loan. Let's say you have the $15k cash but decide to get the car loan at 1.49%. Then you take the rest of the money and invest it in something that pays a ~4% dividend (a utility stock, etc.). You're making money on the difference. Of course, there's no guarantee that the underlying stock won't drop in value, but it might go up, too. And you'll likely pay income tax on the dividends. Still, you have a good chance of making money by taking the loan. So I will argue that there are scenarios where taking advantage of a low interest rate loan can be \"\"good\"\" as an investment opportunity when the risk/reward is acceptable. Be careful, though. There's nothing wrong with paying cash for a car!\"" }, { "docid": "376016", "title": "", "text": "If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate." }, { "docid": "522723", "title": "", "text": "\"My recommendation is to pay off your student loans as quickly as possible. It sounds like you're already doing this but don't incur any other large debts until you have this taken care of. I'd also recommend not buying a car, especially an expensive one, on credit or lease either. Back during the dotcom boom I and many friends bought or leased expensive cars only to lose them or struggle paying for them when the bottom dropped out. A car instantly depreciates and it's quite rare for them to ever gain value again. Stick with reliable, older, used cars that you can purchase for cash. If you do borrow for a car, shop around for the best deal and avoid 3+ year terms if at all possible. Don't lease unless you have a business structure where this might create a clear financial advantage. Avoid credit cards as much as possible although if you do plan to buy a house with a mortgage you'll need to maintain some credit history. If you have the discipline to keep your balance small and paid down you can use a credit card to build credit history. However, these things can quickly get out of hand and you'll wonder why you suddenly owe $10K, $20K or even more on them so be very careful with them. As for the house (speaking of US markets here), save up for at least a 20% down payment if you can. Based on what you said, this would be about $20-25K. This will give you a lot more flexibility to take advantage of deals that might come your way, even if you don't put it all into the house. \"\"Stretching\"\" to buy a house that's too expensive can quickly lead to financial ruin. As for house size, I recommend purchasing a 4 bedroom house even if you aren't planning on kids right away. It will resell better and you'll appreciate having the extra space for storage, home office, hobbies, etc. Also, life has a way of changing your plans for having kids and such.\"" }, { "docid": "574654", "title": "", "text": "I would say that, for the most part, money should not be invested in the stock market or real estate. Mostly this money should be kept in savings: I feel like your emergency fund is light. You do not indicate what your expenses are per month, but unless you can live off of 1K/month, that is pretty low. I would bump that to about 15K, but that really depends upon your expenses. You may want to go higher when you consider your real estate investments. What happens if a water heater needs replacement? (41K left) EDIT: As stated you could reduce your expenses, in an emergency, to 2K. At the bare minimum your emergency fund should be 12K. I'd still be likely to have more as you don't have any money in sinking funds or designated savings and the real estate leaves you a bit exposed. In your shoes, I'd have 12K as a general emergency fund. Another 5K in a car fund (I don't mind driving a 5,000 car), 5k in a real estate/home repair fund, and save about 400 per month for yearly insurance and tax costs. Your first point is incorrect, you do have debt in the form of a car lease. That car needs to be replaced, and you might want to upgrade the other car. How much? Perhaps spend 12K on each and sell the existing car for 2K? (19K left). Congratulations on attempting to bootstrap a software company. What kind of cash do you anticipate needing? How about keeping 10K designated for that? (9K left) Assuming that medical school will run you about 50K per year for 4 years how do you propose to pay for it? Assuming that you put away 4K per month for 24 months and have 9K, you will come up about 95K short assuming some interests in your favor. The time frame is too short to invest it, so you are stuck with crappy bank rates." }, { "docid": "66122", "title": "", "text": "Absolutely do not pay off the car if you aren't planning to keep it. The amount of equity that you have from a trade in vehicle will always be a variable when negotiating a new car purchase. By applying cash (a hard asset) to increase your equity, you are trading a fixed amount for an unknown, variable amount. You are also moving from a position of more certainty for a position of less certainty. You gain nothing by paying off the car, whereas the dealer can negotiate away a larger piece of the equity in the vehicle." } ]

[ { "docid": "197052", "title": "", "text": "In my experience of doing software development for a little longer than I care to remember, salaries are always assumed to be negotiable. I know you said you don't like haggling (a lot of people don't) but you'll have to get used to that and you might have to be a little more flexible. Being able to negotiate something as important as your salary is a very important skill. That said, there might be several reasons why they're not willing to offer more: Here's what I would do:" } ]

[ { "docid": "465410", "title": "", "text": "&gt; if you went somewhat into debt, say $30k, for a major with good job prospects and a high salary, it will probably be a good decision. Which is exactly what I did, and it worked out very well for me. There is still the opportunity cost I mentioned though. The average person makes $30K out of high school, so that is more than a million dollars in opportunity costs if you go to school for four years instead of going to work. Far more than that if you can earn more than $30K, which there is a good chance you can if you have the talent to get into college. Additionally, if a career has good job prospects and high salaries, employers aren't really going to be concerned about your education save where the law mandates it (you cannot be a doctor without the education by law, for instance). It is the lack of capable workers that drives the salaries up and it is that same lack of capable workers that force employers to consider just about anyone. There may be an argument to be made that an education can help as a signal in jobs where competition of fierce, but that same competition will drive the market rate of the job way down, which doesn't exactly seem like a win to me. That's awesome that it worked out for you, I'm just not sure it should be considered a safe or even good investment. While the returns can be there in some cases, it seems like the stakes are pretty high." }, { "docid": "203334", "title": "", "text": "To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary." }, { "docid": "290441", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank God you have your child back, it is so awesome that you finally found a medical treatment that worked. It must have been a truly trying time in your lives. That situation is an important template in personal finance. Through no fault of your own, a series of events occurred that caused you to spend far more money then you anticipated. Per your post this was complicated by lost income due to economic situations. What is to say that this does not happen again in the future? While we can all hope that our child does not get sick, there are other events that could also fit into this template. Because of this I hate all options you present. Per your post, you are pretty thin with free cash flow and have high income, and yet you are looking to borrow more. That is a recipe for disaster with it being made worse as you are considering putting your home at risk. The 20K per year per kid sounds like a live at the university state school; or, a close by private school. Your finances do not support either option. There are times when the word \"\"No\"\" is in order when answering questions. Doing a live at home community college to university will cost you a total of about 30K per kid rather than the 80K you are proposing. Doing this alone will greatly reduce the risk you are attempting to assume. Doing that and having your child work some, you could cash flow college. That is what I would recommend. Given that you are so thin, you will also have to put constraints on college attendance. No changing major three times, only majors with an employable skills, and studying before partying. It may be worth it to wait a year of two before attending if a decision cannot be made. I was in a similar situation when my son started college. High income, but broke. He worked and went to a community college and was able to pay for the bulk of it himself. From there he obtained a job with a healthy salary and completed his degree at the University. It took him a little longer, but he is debt free and has a fantastic work ethic.\"" }, { "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": "463042", "title": "", "text": "If you enjoy driving 5 minutes out of the way to get gas (or mowing the lawn or whatever), then it is perfectly rational to do it. If not, the value of your time is how much you would value (not necessarily how much you would get paid) doing something else. MrChrister is right, the concept behind the comic is opportunity cost. In a nutshell, if driving an extra 5 minutes for gas is complete drudgery to you and you would only do it to save money, may as well get a part-time job at minimum wage instead. If you would rather, say, go watch TV instead of getting that part-time job, then you value TV-watching at greater than the minimum wage, and it is still irrational to drive 5 minutes for the gas. Basically, the answer to your question is to figure out what else you could be doing that offers similar overall pleasure/pain to the task at hand and see how much you would get paid to do that instead. It doesn't matter that you are on a fixed salary." }, { "docid": "576626", "title": "", "text": "I've had 50% raise offers before. Start ups might pay more to attract talent but you look at what they are doing and realize they will probably be out of cash flow once the venture capitalist money dries up. If you like changing jobs sure. I've been at the same company for 12 years. My salary has gone up 4x since I started so whatever. It's just easier. I know one of my offers went out of business in less then 8 months..." }, { "docid": "576001", "title": "", "text": "\"Advice from a long-time flipper You negotiate price based on four factors and none of these are set in stone: How much you love the house. Is this house a 100 out of 100 for you or a 85 or a 75. How much have you compromised. What is the likelihood that you will find a house that will make you just as happy or at least close. You might have a house that is a 95 out of 100 but there are five other houses that you rated between 93-95. What is your timeframe. Know that playing hardball takes longer and can knock you out of the game sometimes and takes a little while to find a new game. What is the relative housing market. Zillow and other such sites are crap. Yes the give you a generalized feel for a community but their estimates are off sometimes by 30-40%. Other factors like street/noise/updates to house/ and so on are huge factors. You will have to really navigate the area and look for very comparable houses that have recently sold. Then use average housing movements to extrapolate your future houses cost. As a buyer you have two jobs. Buy the house you want and manage your agent. Your agent wants you to buy a house as soon as possible and to increase their reputation. Those are their only two factors of working. By you offering closer to the asking price they are able to get their sales as quick as possible. Also other agents will love working with them. In fact your agent is selling you on the home and the price. Agents hardly worry about you paying too much - as most buyers oversell the deal they get on their home. Admitting that you paid too much for your house is more of an admission of ignorance of yourself, compared to agent incompetency. If you decide to low-ball the owner, your agent spends more time with you and possibly reduces their reputation with the selling agent. So it is common for agents to tell you that you should not offer a low price as you will insult the owner. My advice. Unless the home is truly one of a kind for the market offering anything within 20% of the asking price is DEFINITELY within range. I have offered 40% less. If a house is asking too much and has been on the market for 8 months there is no way I am going in with an offer of even 15% lower. That leaves you no room. What you do? First think about how much you think this house could sell for in the next 3 months. In your example let's say 80K based on conservative comps. Then take the most you would actually pay for it. Let's say 75K. 70K is about as high of an opening offer I would go. Do NOT tell your agent your true breaking points. If you tell your agent that you would go to 75K on the house. Then that is what their negotiations will start at. Remember they want the sale to happen as soon as possible. Very likely the other agent - especially if they know each other - will ask if how flexible you are going to be. Then next thing you know your agent calls you back and says would you be willing to go 77K or the owner is firm at 80K. Do not give up your position. You should never forecast to your agent what your next bid or offer would be for the house. Never get into scenarios or future counters. So you offer 70K. If your agent asks you how firm that is? \"\"Very firm\"\". If your agent doesn't want to take the offer to them, \"\"Thank you for being my agent, but I am going to be working with someone that represents what I want.\"\" If the owner says \"\"You are done too me cheapskate.\"\" Well that's how it goes. If the owner stays firm at asking or lowers - then you can come up if you feel comfortable doing so. But understand what your goal is. Is it to get a house or to get a good deal on a house? Mine was always to get a good deal on a house. So I might offer 72K next. If they didn't budge, I am out. If they moved down I went from there. Easy Summary The fact is if they aren't willing to negotiate with you enough it always ends the same. You give them your take-it-or-leave-it offer. You tell your agent that if he/she comes back with one penny over it comes from their commission (god I have said this 100 times in my life and it is the best negotiation tactic you have with your agent). The owner says yes or no and it is over.\"" }, { "docid": "468755", "title": "", "text": "The prices reflect what the market will bear. People have more money, things will likely cost more. Think of it in terms of percentages and you can start to justify the higher housing costs. My father likes to tell me that his first mortgage cost him $75 a month, and he had no idea how he was going to pay it each month. He also earned $3/hr at his job. So his housing costs were 15% of his gross income. My dear father almost passed out when he learned that my mortgage was $1000 a month, but since I earn $4000/month gross, I am really only paying 25% of my salary. (Numbers made up) So if he complains I pay 10% more, so be it, but complaining I pay $925 more isn't worrying to me because of my increased salary. So if your complaint is the amounts, you must take ratios, percentages and relative comparisons. However if you are baffled by people having money and wasting it on silly or foolish purchases, I am with you. I still don't understand why people will use the closest ATM and just pay the $2 fee. Do right by yourself and don't mind what others are up to." }, { "docid": "569207", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;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) &gt;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? &gt;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. &gt;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&amp;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": "368649", "title": "", "text": "\"For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the \"\"12 million\"\" refers to? Do you mean \"\"total cost of animations created by the company in a year\"\" or? If so, \"\"12 million\"\" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example. Do you mean the \"\"cost of plant\"\" - so, for a \"\"TV commercial production company\"\" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a \"\"film or TV-commercial production company\"\" is a bad example, it's not really a \"\"business\"\" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous \"\"film or TV-commercial production companies\"\" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.) G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial. G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job. Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says \"\"Yes\"\" and hands over a cheque for $190,000. G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he \"\"hires\"\" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on. Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer. P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically \"\"help with cashflow.\"\" The answer to that is nothing more than \"\"through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that.\"\" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on. (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G \"\"apologizes\"\".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from \"\"actual investors\"\", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories. Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: \"\"borrow money\"\" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to \"\"start an animation studio\"\" - which would be completely whacky. Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you \"\"have\"\" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs). XYZ just couldn't care less. All they care about is your folio of work. In this example, RSA would get the job :) ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around \"\"borrowing money\"\" to get businesses like that started. (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't - your fears are assuaged! :)\"" }, { "docid": "292667", "title": "", "text": "\"sorry mate, its not about being loyal. it's about what you negotiate. you stay with a company long enough and you'll only rack up your annual 2% pay increase and see minor raises until you're promoted to incompetence. If you really want to see healthy compensation than you need to realize it's about negotiating to your true value to the market - not just join a company and cross your fingers for the best. Frankly, if someone is willing to pay more ($$ and other benefits) then you'd do yourself and those you support a disservice not going for it. There are times when you should be less aggressive about it for the long haul, but don't forget, a company's job is to turn a profit which means getting workers to work at the lowest possible salary. And when a corporation thinks someone is \"\"loyal\"\" and won't move, then a smart company will go ahead and test that assumption. Re: entry level expectations about their true value - absolutely agree, expect entry compensation. But don't think being \"\"loyal\"\" is what changes that. Only increasing your actual value does - not just because you've been around forever.\"" }, { "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": "366282", "title": "", "text": "\"I think there's a sub~~ject~~ for this financialcareers or something. I'll just say, as your career goes on, every \"\"next\"\" place you interview for will ask what your last salary was and partly base their offer on that. So taking a job like this that bumps you up considerably pays off for every other job you get down the road.\"" }, { "docid": "317260", "title": "", "text": "10 years into my career. Here are my notes: 1. Don't work overtime as a salaried employee. If there's more work than people then management needs to hire more people. Sure, there are times when shit hits the fan and there's no other option, but that should be a 'once every two years' event, not a 'once every week' event. 2. Be a rockstar. If you're spending time 'looking busy' because you finished a 3 hour job in 1 hour ship the results to your manager and ask for more. Those results will be noticed and will move you from entry-level to mid-level to senior. 3. Skills pay the bills. Always work on learning new things to bring value to your employer. This is also required to move up the chain in your career, and leads into my #4. 4. Get paid what you're worth. Maintain an understanding of what similar skillsets are paying in your area and either maintain or exceed that. Your employer has an incentive to pay you as little as possible. Show them comparable salaries for the same position paying more and make them match it. If they won't match it find someone who will. 5. Don't correct your boss/salesperson when they are presenting to management/customers. Instead, let them know after the meeting. Your #2 points (both of them) are something that I struggled with when I was new in my career. It was incredibly frustrating to *know* something, but not have anyone listen due to the fact that I was a 'kid'. Unfortunately it's a part of life. If you can do #2 and #3 on my list for a couple of years people will start listening. It's a great feeling being a 24 year old kid in a room full of my boss's bosses, and my boss's boss's bosses and having them listen and consider my opinion, but it's not something that's given to everyone. You need to earn it." }, { "docid": "120576", "title": "", "text": "You know what? I'd love it if I could work a part-time job, but make the same salary (scaled down to the number of hours, obviously). I spend entirely too much time away from the things I'd rather be doing (family, hobbies, relaxing) in my 40 hour hell-hole. I'd much rather take a reasonable cut and work less. Basically, I don't need to get rich, but if I can live off of a reduced salary *and* work fewer hours I'd be a very happy man. Now... working part time and not earning enough to survive- that's not acceptable at all. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of part-time jobs are this way." }, { "docid": "394905", "title": "", "text": "I don't buy new cars anymore, but I've helped family members negotiate prices on new cars recently. There are various online services to see the average price paid, as well as the low outliers. I've looked at truecar.com for instance to see what others have paid within 50 miles of my zip-code. I think the only way for you to know you're being offered a good deal is to see if any of the other dealers that have not responded are willing to talk when you offer them $22,300 which the dealer above suggested was break-even point. If none of them respond, then you know you're really at the bottom of the negotiating window. If one of them does respond, then you can go back to that internet sales manager and ask why another dealership (do not disclose which one) is willing to sell it to you for less than $22,400 (do not disclose how much lower they offered to sell it for). In my experience, most dealers will sell at or just below the break-even price at the end of the quarter so that they can beat other dealerships out for the quota. That gives you a week and a half to find the bottom price before going in on New Years Eve to seal the deal." }, { "docid": "57994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a manager of a charity shop so work with a wide range of unpaid volunteers, which requires an especially soft touch (most of the time, everyone is different) or people will just leave. It takes longer, but the overall results are better and more long-lasting. Think of it like pushing a boat from the docks with your hand, always applying a small pressure to get the boat to gradually move where you want, rather than ramming into the side of a boat with a truck - sure it'll get you there quicker, but will cause lasting damage. It's also best to take it slow, as you need time to learn the business and people. Be clear about your approach with your boss, managing their expectations is important. Anyway, here is what I've learnt in my first year or so doing this job, plus things I've learnt along the way in my previous career as a software engineer (radical career change!) where I've managed people and been managed: 1. Be yourself. Don't pretend to be someone you're not, everyone will see right through you in an instant. You'll change over time as you get used to managing people, that's fine, but always be yourself through that. 1. Say \"\"thank you\"\" to everyone at the end of each day as you say goodbye. Mean it. Think of all the work they've done today for you. 1. Spread the shit evenly. Every job has crap parts, make sure you and everyone else gets their fair share and no more. I regularly hoover, clean the bathroom, wash-up, and so on. 1. Ask, don't tell. If you bark orders, people will do them.. but they'll put no effort into it and you'll distance yourself from them. Ask if they could do something for you. It's a politeness, nobody ever says no unless there is an issue which you need to deal with anyway. 1. Pick your battles. Is it worth moaning at someone for that little infraction? Or can you get over that message another way? i.e. I don't like people having drinks on the till counter, so when I take over to cover for them for a break, I just move it. After a while, no drinks appear on the counter. 1. Be honest. If you don't know, say so.. ask for input. Weigh up the options out loud, then pick one, explain why, and go for it - or better yet, get the person that thought of it working with you (not for you) to implement it. If you're wrong, hold your hand up and try the other suggestion(s). 1. Always take responsibility when things go wrong - that is actually your job. When things go well, use *you* and *we*. If things go badly, sometimes *I*, sometimes *we*, but never *you*. 1. Always be pro-active with money. If you owe your staff money for any reason, chase them to give it to them, never let them chase you. If there even *might* be any problems at all with money, let everyone know as soon as you know. Go out of your way to ensure they get what they're owed *now*, not later. I just did this today actually, I forgot to do expenses for someone and switched over the till so there wasn't enough cash in the new till to cover it.. so I just took it from the money to bank, and marked down why there was a discrepancy on the paperwork and will do the same tomorrow when that doesn't match by the opposite amount. I should not do this at all, but it's the right thing to do. 1. Listen carefully. Often employees have problems but won't bring them up, either they don't think anything will get done, or they don't want to get someone in trouble, or something else. However, if you listen and observe carefully, often there are clues to the things that are bothering them and you'll find ways to tackle them. 1. Don't run a team meeting until you know everyone, if you can avoid it. You don't know shit about how the company works, who the people are, what makes them tick, what they do, and so on. All you'll do is come across as a bit of a tool, and distance yourself from them (as boss). When you do run one, just guide it, don't lead it. Always hand over control of the conversation as much as possible, except of course where you've got things that they need to hear. 1. Never joke about your 'power'. i.e. Don't mess about saying how you'll fire them if blah, or how you'll give them all the shit work, or mention pay jokingly, etc. I had a boss that did that when drunk, not in a serious way at all, and he was very widely hated for pretty well nothing other than that. It served as a constant reminder that he's separate from us. 1. Give people room, but don't be taken for a ride. If someone is late once, fine, I wouldn't even mention it. Late again, maybe I'd make a light joke of it. Late again.. we'll have a chat.. always listen to what they have to say, is there any way you can help? But, don't be taken for a ride. I've had people pick me up on being late the very first time I was late, and you know what, I was more late for that job from then on than I've ever been before or since. 1. Try to get your employees to come up with ideas to move the business forwards. It's very easy to look at a business and say \"\"we need this, that, and the other doing.. like this!\"\". But you need to get your employees to buy into it, or they just won't do it properly. It'll be like getting blood out of a stone to start with, but if you're patient and support their ideas most people will come around. You *need* their input as they know their job better than you. 1. EDIT: Always be clear what you want from people, when. Speak with them about the task(s) before-hand to make sure they're comfortable with it and think it can be done in the time. So many times I've been given tasks with unrealistic deadlines, the manager hasn't wanted to listen to my protests, then wonders why it didn't get done in time. It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know.. so I say go for it and support it completely as a good idea. We tried it for a month, and we made exactly the same amount of money.. sold twice as many books, but no extra cash. So it was valuable to do, and we discovered that maybe 1.49 might be a good option to try. But, far more importantly, they saw their ideas put into action right away, and saw the results of that. It empowered them, which is incredibly important for a wide variety of reasons that are too much to go into here, but basically it makes them feel more respected, enjoy their job more, think more about the business, and so on - you know what it's like when you're empowered, how good it feels. However, it's being empowered with the support that's important, something which you personally going into your new job don't feel you have, which leads to the anxiety and so on I'm sure you're feeling now. Don't put your employees in that position if you can help it. There is also another reason why I outright supported their idea from the offset. It didn't work (although we didn't loose anything) and I thought it wouldn't, but I can say \"\"*we* tried\"\". It wasn't down to that one person, they didn't feel bad that it didn't work because I was right behind it, and it's my job to take responsibility. If it had been *their* idea that had failed, they wouldn't give any ideas ever again, and everyone else would be put off too. As soon as anyone tries to take personal responsibility, and they will, stick to your guns in supporting them.. stronger than ever. Now we're getting a lot of ideas all the time, they're having in-depth discussions amongst each other, they're pro-active, and so on. As a business we're doing much better now because of it.. profits are up 15% from last year and we've only just begun to kick things off, and that's going against a national trend downwards. We've had several critical changes to our shop layout, back-room organisation, results reporting, stock handling processes, and so on.. all from volunteer ideas and feedback. So the 15% is actually the tip of the iceberg, what we've got in place now should allow us to grow more quickly too. And remember, you can make suggestions too of course.. but they're just that, suggestions. Suggest them to your employees, speak with several of them, then get back to them when you've made a decision. Don't say \"\"I'm thinking of trying this\"\", say \"\"I was just thinking.. what about this? Do you think it would work?\"\" and talk about it. Think of arguments against your idea, see if they counter them, and so on. Now.. how many of these changes did I think of before-hand and want to enact? About half.. so we've got a significant number of successful ideas that I personally hadn't thought of, everyone's happier and working harder for the business, and we have a bright future. I have more ideas too, and people listen to and respect them now just like I have with them. I think that's the key to it all really. Show your employees respect, and they'll show you it in return.\"" }, { "docid": "524471", "title": "", "text": "What's relevant to whether you accept the offer should be the compensation package (including salary and benefits) they're offering, the work you'll be doing, and the conditions in which you'll be doing it. The communication history between you and the recruiter isn't really that relevant, since you probably won't deal with the recruiter once you're hired. So, if this is a job you want to do at the level of compensation offered, accept the offer. If not, don't. If you suspect that they actually could be willing to negotiate for a higher salary despite already saying that they aren't, you could test this by declining the offer and saying that that last $5K is the only sticking point, but only if your intent really is to walk away from the offer as it stands." }, { "docid": "164801", "title": "", "text": "\"I live in the UK so it's a little different but generally you'd have one account (a current account) which would have a Visa/MasterCard debit card associated before working and any high street bank (don't know what the US equivalent would be, but big banks such as HSBC/Santander) will offer you a savings account which pays a v small amount of interest as well as bonds as all sorts. From what I know most people have their salary paid into their current account (which would be the spending account with a card associated) and would transfer a set amount to a savings account. Personally, I have a current account and a few different saving accounts (which do not have cards associated). One savings account has incoming transfers/money received and I can use online banking to transfer that to my current account \"\"instantly\"\" (at least I've done it standing at ATM's and the money is there seconds later - but again this is the UK, not US). This way, my primary current account never has more than £10-15 in it, whenever I know I need money I'll transfer it from the instant access account. This has saved me before when I've been called by my bank for transactions a few £100 each which would have been authorised I kept all my money in my current account. If you don't have money (and dont have an overdraft!) what are they meant to do with it? The other savings account I had setup so that I could not transfer money out without going into a branch with ID/etc, less to stop someone stealing my money and more to be physically unable to waste money on a Friday if I don't arrive at the bank before 4/5PM, so saves a lot of time. US banking is a nightmare, I don't imagine any of this will translate well and I think if you had your salary paid into your savings on a Friday and missed the bank with no online banking facilities/transfers that aren't instant you'd be in a lot of trouble. If the whole \"\"current + instant access savings account\"\" thing doesn't work to well, I'm sure a credit/charge (!!!) card will work instead of a separate current account. Spend everything on that (within reason and what you can pay back/afford to pay stupid interest on) on a card with a 0% purchase rate and pay it back using an account you're paid into but is never used for expenses, some credit cards might even reward you for this type of thing but again, credit can be dangerous. A older retired relative of mine has all of his money in one account, refuses a debit card from the bank every time he is offered (he has a card, but it isn't a visa/mastercard, it's purely used for authentication in branch) and keeps that in a safe indoors! Spends everything he needs on his credit card and writes them a sort of cheque (goes into the bank with ID and signs it) for the full balance when his statement arrives. No online banking! No chance of him getting key logged any time soon. tldr; the idea of separating the accounts your money goes in (salary wise) and goes out (spending) isn't a bad idea. that is if wire transfers don't take 3-5 days where you are aha.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "524471", "title": "", "text": "What's relevant to whether you accept the offer should be the compensation package (including salary and benefits) they're offering, the work you'll be doing, and the conditions in which you'll be doing it. The communication history between you and the recruiter isn't really that relevant, since you probably won't deal with the recruiter once you're hired. So, if this is a job you want to do at the level of compensation offered, accept the offer. If not, don't. If you suspect that they actually could be willing to negotiate for a higher salary despite already saying that they aren't, you could test this by declining the offer and saying that that last $5K is the only sticking point, but only if your intent really is to walk away from the offer as it stands." } ]

[ { "docid": "492293", "title": "", "text": "&gt; is allowing one person and a computer to do the job of what used to be 5 men keeping wages down even more That doesn't make any sense. It means you can pay the man doing the work twice his normal salary and still be paying him less than 5 people" }, { "docid": "515365", "title": "", "text": "Wall Street salaries are rather exorbitant but its influence is far from insignificant. Do you know where pensions come from? The money that veterans and retirees rely on to survive. Hedge funds. How do the firms and companies that employ all those workers listed in greater numbers? Institutional money management AKA hedge funds as a small subset. A company in distress and is in threat of laying off thousands of employees. What can help it? A private equity firm that will actively work to save and restore the company, for it's own profit, but the employees will still have jobs. NO large company with tens of thousands of employees can exist right now without the capital raising and transaction advisory services of an investment bank. Stock trading as a means to grow personal wealth would not exist. While true these institutions make a disproportionate amount money, you must consider why. Nearly all front office jobs on Wall Street have 6am-8pm hours. Investment banking analysts have up to 100 hours a week, that's sweatshop salary per hour. Hedge fund managers wake up at night sweating to check Asia markets to see if they'll still have a job. These are not the suburban 9-5 jobs where you can actually have weekends. The high salary comes from an extremely rare skillset that's taught only from experience not in schools, high stress and commitment, and the highest quality of labor (mostly ivy leaguers on Wall Street, they've worked their asses off for these jobs). Salary has to do with supply and demand. I have the upmost respect for janitorial workers because they do what we don't want to do, but their pay isn't great because anyone can be a janitor. If most people in the country could build a portfolio with a sharpe ratio higher than 2 that billions of pension dollars would rely on, then we won't have such high hedge fund salaries, for example" }, { "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": "214173", "title": "", "text": "\"Hello! First of all, I think it's great you're asking the community for help. Asking for help when you need it is a sign of strength and self-awareness of your own limitations (which we all have, even the smartest business people ask questions, in fact they ask the most questions). I'm wrapping up year 2 of doing what you're trying to do and am finally seeing real traction. I am a bit older than you and started out on my own 7 years after grad school, but I have learned a lot and don't mind sharing. Here's some things you might find useful. * Never work for free (working for \"\"equity\"\" or working for \"\"exposure\"\" is working for free). People who offer you this because you're just starting out are parasites looking to sell your talents but not pay for them. The only thing you can take away from attempts to do this is that your talents are in demand, which is good! * Never sell yourself short: would you rather do 10 websites for a $1000 each or do 1 website for $10000? You'll be doing a lot of projects in the middle, but one very important thing to bear in mind is that one $10000 website is a lot less work and may make you the same amount of money (or more) overall. * In the beginning, maybe you think you need to build a portfolio. But you'd be surprised how many prospects don't care what's in your portfolio and in fact never look at the portfolio, which leads me to the most important bit of advice: * Learn to sell yourself. YOU are your company's first and main product. Learn to sell yourself (as the smart kid, future Fortune 500 CEO who stays up all night getting things done, etc) * Always aim high in your proposals. You'd be surprised how many people don't negotiate at all. That being said, always put something in your proposal that is a good idea but it beyond what their asking for. If they ask you to come down in price, remove this feature and come down a little bit. * Develop an ability to read how interested a prospect is in your services before you spring the price on them. At your age, I was waiting tables. This helped me to be able to read a customer to determine which waiter they wanted me to be: the attentive one, the high class one, the friend, or the quiet servile. Consider taking on a side job to help you develop this skill. * As I said above, some prospects will sign on the line without negotiating. You might even take two proposals with you into a meeting with a prospect, one priced high and one low, and present the version that matches their interests. Go high if they need something \"\"right now\"\". * Remember you are your company's first product. This means also that your time is the company's first commodity. Be open to other things. I have a background in mathematics and am most capable as a software developer and a web developer. But I also help other companies sell and support physical products not at all related to technology. Because it's highly profitable, I do it. * When you're a one person business selling your time at the highest price is the name of the game. But growing your business will require the help of others. I found it helpful to first network with other like minded people and split project money according to skill level and time commitment on a per project basis. This will allow you to take on bigger projects. * But growing the company will eventually require you to hire (or contract) someone at a far lower pay rate than what you're bringing in. The laws of supply and demand require you to do this as a business person if you're to grow the business (so that the business has money beyond what you're being paid). This is where the extra money comes from: selling the time of others at a higher price than you're paying them. Be conscious of this. Everyone you work with is not going to be your friend. * Make your website awesome. It doesn't have to be a work of art, but let it reflect the seriousness with which you approach your customers' projects. Make sure there are no grammatical errors. Find a website of someone highly successful who's doing what you're doing and emulate it. You don't have to have a portfolio starting out. Your website is your first portfolio item, and if it's awesome, prospects will think you'll do the same for them. Good luck! I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thinks your early developed entrepreneurship is going to take you far.\"" }, { "docid": "589470", "title": "", "text": "Not only are absolute incomes (adjusted for inflation) not increasing, but purchasing power is also decreasing. Decades ago, the salary of one middle class worker can raise a family. Nowadays, you can't even buy a home with two salaries, especially in large metro areas. There are numerous factors why this is happening: 1. Globalization. Why pay an American more when something can be done or made in Vietnam for a fraction of the cost? Prices of non-renewable resources will increase as third-world countries modernize and their populations demand the same luxuries that we have. 2. Automation. Automation has eliminated many jobs further driving income inequality. There are people with very high salaries since automation are making them much more productive and then there are jobs that have been completely eliminated because of automation. I know of factories that laid off a large fraction of their operators because the machines are now automated (but they did a hire few more engineers and technicians to increase productivity). 3. Scarcity of land. Everyone wants to live in areas where the jobs are but you can only build so much housing in one area, so house prices go up faster than wages. People with good jobs in industries where jobs are clustered in one place (biotech, software, semiconductors, finance, etc.) actually can afford less real estate than one would think based on their income just because of their location. These issues will become even more relevant as technology continues to develop and globalization continues." }, { "docid": "577531", "title": "", "text": "If that's not a politically loaded title to your post I don't know what is. Wal-Mart pays it's employees the wage that it is competitive, in line with similar types of work, and what it is able to afford and still offer the pricing they can on the products they offer (and still make money). What they're doing is legal and ethical. Additionally, if the people that work at Wal-Mart need more money than their jobs offer, what concern of their employer is that? If the people don't like that they don't make enough money at their job and have to take welfare, then it's their responsibility to improve their situation, not their employer's to give them more money for the same work just because they don't earn enough. Is Wal-Mart's (or any place of employment for that matter) mission to enrich their employees or to do business to make a profit? I hope your answer is the latter. If it's not I think you're less an advocate of business and more an advocate of socialism and wealth redistribution." }, { "docid": "384541", "title": "", "text": "\"An employee costs the company in four ways: Salary, taxes, benefits, and capital. Salary: The obvious one, what they pay you. Taxes: There are several taxes that an employer has to pay for the privilege of hiring someone, including social security taxes (which goes to your retirement), unemployment insurance tax (your unemployment benefits if they lay you off), and workers compensation tax (pays if you are injured on the job). (There may be other taxes that I'm not thinking of, but in any case those are the main ones.) Benefits: In the U.S. employers often pay for medical insurance, sometimes for dental, life, and disability. There's usually some sort of retirement plan. They expect to give you some number of vacation days, holidays, and sick days where they pay you even though you're not working. Companies sometimes offer other benefits, like discounts on buying company products, membership in health clubs, etc. Capital: Often the company has to provide you with some sort of equipment, like a computer; furniture, like a chair and desk; etc. As far as the company is concerned, all of the above are part of the cost of having you as an employee. If they would pay a domestic employee $60,000 in salary and $20,000 in taxes, then assuming the same benefits and capital investment, if a foreign employee would cost them $0 in taxes they should logically be willing to pay $80,000. Any big company will have accountants who figure out the total cost of a new employee in excruciating detail, and they will likely be totally rational about this. A smaller company might think, \"\"well, taxes don't really count ...\"\" This is irrational but people are not always rational. I don't know what benefits they are offering you, if any, and what equipment they will provide you with, if any. I also don't know what taxes, if any, a U.S. company has to pay when hiring a remote employee in a foreign country. If anybody on here knows the answer to that, please chime in. Balanced against that, the company likely sees disadvantages to hiring a foreign remote employee, too. Communication will be more difficult, which may result in inefficiency. My previous employer used some contractors in India and while there were certainly advantages, the language and time zone issues caused difficulties. There are almost certainly some international bureaucratic inconveniences they will have to deal with. Etc. So while you should certainly calculate what it would cost them to have a domestic employee doing the same job, that's not necessarily the end of the story. And ultimately it all comes down to negotiations. Even if the company knows that by the time they add in taxes and benefits and whatever, a domestic employee will cost them $100,000 a year, if they are absolutely convinced that they should be able to hire an Austrian for $60,000 a year, that might be the best offer you will get. You can point out the cost savings, and maybe they will concede the point and maybe not.\"" }, { "docid": "576626", "title": "", "text": "I've had 50% raise offers before. Start ups might pay more to attract talent but you look at what they are doing and realize they will probably be out of cash flow once the venture capitalist money dries up. If you like changing jobs sure. I've been at the same company for 12 years. My salary has gone up 4x since I started so whatever. It's just easier. I know one of my offers went out of business in less then 8 months..." }, { "docid": "176334", "title": "", "text": "A simple and low-interest loan is probably the least likely to cause acrimony, aside from a direct gift. You seem to be describing an equity stake in their house, where some portion of the appreciation in value accrues to you (relative to your initial investment). An equity stake in their house probably doesn't make much sense. You sound as though you're not going to do any of the work aside from the contribution of money. Equity might make sense as a way to reward you for efforts, such as home design or renovation, that increase the value of the home. You probably don't want to be in a position where you are together improving the property and your payback only comes when she sells for more money. What if you have different ideas of how to do it? She has to live there and may want improvements for her needs rather than for buyers. What if she asks you to pay for a portion of the improvement costs or resents you not offering? What if she doesn't want to sell for some reason, so your money is locked up with her family choices? Renovations can often be stressful, so these decisions may be made at difficult times. Either a gift or a low-interest family loan may be simpler for your needs. You can just set the loan terms you want, say payoff over 10 years or a deferred payment schedule. If she gets in trouble, you could perhaps delay or forgive payments. I don't know the UK tax consequences of a loan of this nature, if any. As a general proposition, it's best to set clear and simple expectations at the beginning, and avoid agreements that require multiple decisions to be made consensually in the future, possibly during a time of stress." }, { "docid": "261989", "title": "", "text": "Bank products have been pretty common with tax refunds as well, and they are also being heavily scrutinized for the same reasons. Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) have been outlawed for future tax seasons due to lack of consumer protection. What is a bank product, you might ask? Rather than waiting 7-14 days for the a direct deposit from the IRS, a lot of places like H+R Block and Jackson Hewitt would offer a bank product to get you money quicker. For this service, they charge a fee (usually $99-$149) which is grossly overpriced for how little work it takes, but if your refund is several thousand dollars, you may not care. A Refund Anticipation Loan was the most predatory bank product, as it was an advance on your loan for the amount your expected refund. However, if there were any errors in your return and the IRS decided your refund was less than what your tax preparer calculated it to be, you were stuck with paying back the advance amount, leaving you to foot the bill for whatever errors your preparer may have made. These loans also had very high interest rates, since usually the people that wanted RALs were also the same people that rely upon cash advances. There are also Electronic Refund Checks (which ironically are paper checks for the consumer, not electronic deposits), direct deposits, and prepaid debit cards. Despite the fact that these same methods of refund payments are offered by the IRS themselves, preparers and banks alike sold these to collect fees for essentially no work. I'm not sure how similar these bank products for student loans are, but I wanted to shed some light on them anyways. Regardless of how badly you need money, **do not ever accept money through a bank product.** If it benefited you more, banks and preparers would not offer these. (Source: telemarketing at a tax preparation software company)" }, { "docid": "403610", "title": "", "text": "its not about ruin, its about less and less incentive through decreased net profits. Your business yields 50% net profits off the gross? Acceptable. Through increased liability it yields only 40%? Less incentive. If I told you your paycheck would remain the same, but gas would go up 20% and you've got a 40 mile commute. Would you keep the same job? At what point do you leave that job? How close to 100% of your salary cost in gas would you continue working? What if 80% of your net income went to gas?" }, { "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": "368649", "title": "", "text": "\"For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the \"\"12 million\"\" refers to? Do you mean \"\"total cost of animations created by the company in a year\"\" or? If so, \"\"12 million\"\" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example. Do you mean the \"\"cost of plant\"\" - so, for a \"\"TV commercial production company\"\" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a \"\"film or TV-commercial production company\"\" is a bad example, it's not really a \"\"business\"\" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous \"\"film or TV-commercial production companies\"\" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.) G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial. G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job. Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says \"\"Yes\"\" and hands over a cheque for $190,000. G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he \"\"hires\"\" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on. Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer. P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically \"\"help with cashflow.\"\" The answer to that is nothing more than \"\"through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that.\"\" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on. (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G \"\"apologizes\"\".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from \"\"actual investors\"\", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories. Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: \"\"borrow money\"\" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to \"\"start an animation studio\"\" - which would be completely whacky. Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you \"\"have\"\" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs). XYZ just couldn't care less. All they care about is your folio of work. In this example, RSA would get the job :) ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around \"\"borrowing money\"\" to get businesses like that started. (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't - your fears are assuaged! :)\"" }, { "docid": "168796", "title": "", "text": "From your question and how you have framed it, I get you find Agressive Sales tactics disturb the buying process for you. ;) I understand because I also find the whole process of Research / Negotiating / Buying / Owning / Using is all on one continuum, so anything that ruins the process will likely lose the sale or enjoyment of the item, at the end of the day. [Very long answer .... Sorry :) ] The answer to this is to KNOW what you want before you have to deal with the Sales people. A good Sales person likes a customer who knows what they want. I would suggest that you follow my 'Buying Process' (Much you have already done) : Before you Buy: Identify the item you want and the max/min 'realistic' price you would buy at. [Stick to this price else 'Buyers Remorse' may bite later.] Write the questions you have down on paper before you visit the Dealer. Write the answers you want on the same list, if known. Decide which questions are most important and therefore must get the answer you want. These should be the questions you ask first. Mark these on the list. Re-visit points 1-3 are they complete and to your satisfaction ? Would you buy if all the answers & the price are right ? If NO then re-visit point 1-3 else you are not ready to buy now !!! If YES then Organise your visit to the Dealer. [Book appointment etc if needed.] At Dealer: Meet your Sales person and clearly state what you want (the item) and importantly when you intend to buy, if all your questions are answered to your satisfaction. There is no need to discuss price at this point as the 'haggling' is only possible IF the questions are answered to your satisfaction. Do not give information such as your maximum budget or similar requests, as they give the sales person the upper hand to maximise his/her pricing. If asked state that your budget is conditional on the answers you get. As the questions are answered assess the answer and assign +/- to the question on your list. If any of your most critical / important questions are answered in the negative, they are the reasons you have to call it a day and walk out. You can assess whether they are worth ignoring but you will need to factor this into your price and if you have identified your questions correctly there should be little room for debate. Assuming you have got all your questions answered you should know what you are buying and have assessed what is a reasonable price for it, if you still want it as this point. If you have lost interest, say so and let the Sales person go. Don't waste their time. They may make some sort of offer to you BUT don't forget that if you have doubts now they will not go away easily no matter what the 'great' price is. If you want it then continue. Buying your Item: [None of the following is really usefull if you have told the Sales person your Budget, as they will be aiming for the highest end of your budget. You will often find that the best price is very close to your maximum budget !!! :)] Do not forget your realistic price range, this should limit your buying price no matter what tactics are used by the Sales person. Only you know what you are prepared to pay and if an extra 1% or 50% is considered worth it to you, if you have to have the item :) Regardless, you have to have some idea of your limit and be prepared to stick to it. You must be able to walk away if the price is silly and not worth it. Assuming you have not been smitten by your item and funds are NOT unlimited, ask for the price and assess it against your price range. At this point I can only offer pointers as there are no 'magic' rules to get what you want at the lowest price. The only advice I would offer is that you will be lucky to get something at your 1st offer price unless the seller really needs to sell, because of this your 1st offer should be less than your price range lowest band. You will need to assess how much less but be prepared to get a 'No' response. If you get a 'Yes' and your research is good 'Buy It !!!' If you get too enthusiastic a response, question your research & if not sure bail out [No Sale] :) At this point you are likely to be 'Haggling' so you need to be ready for all the 'Must buy Now' tactics. If you have clearly stated your wants and timescales there is no reason to be pulled in by these tactics and they can be ignored until the price has reached the level you are happy with. If the price is not moving where you want than clearly state you cannot 'buy at that price'. If you get a total stop and no movement than you need to assess your 'need' and if priced too high then you should walk out. Remember if you stated that you had a timescale to buy of 1/2/3 weeks you should act like you have 1/2/3 weeks to keep looking. Any eagerness on your part will tell the Sales person that you have lied !!! :) You can always come back and try again, reminding the Sales person that the 'item' is still there and perhaps it is priced too high to sell and make the same offer. !!! (A bit of cheek sometimes works.) If the price is close and you still want it and the Sales person is not moving you need to try walking out while stating that you would love the 'item' if it was priced better, if no improved offer as you go, try an increased offer but again you need to assess how much and remember you can only go up, or walk out and come back another day. If the price is at a level you are happy with then you should have no reason not to buy (if you have followed this process) but this does not mean that you should be forced into buying now if you do not want to. Regardless of any 'Must buy now' tactics if the price is right and you cannot buy now, tell the Sales person when you CAN buy and see if you can get an agreement with this. It is unfair to expect a price to be held for an indeterminate time, so you do need to state when you could buy if not now when a price has been agreed. This is a point where the deal may break down if the Sales person thinks they have a sale and trys to force the Sale now. Once again you have to assess your 'need' and whether buying now is better than walking out. If the deal breaks down there is nothing stopping you from coming back and offering the same price when you can buy. A final option is to agree if a deposit can be left to reserve the item until you can buy. This gives the Sales person some assurance that you will come back and is sometimes NON-Refundable unless you agree otherwise before you pay, so check this detail first. (This tends to be smaller Dealers but generally in the UK the large companies offer refundable deposits as part of their Customer Service, the advantage of using larger Stores/Dealers etc.) Apologies for the epic reply, hope it helps." }, { "docid": "69565", "title": "", "text": "You are paid hourly? I would have expected most IT people to be on salary Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it. Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications? Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on. If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of moving up Hope this helps" }, { "docid": "168613", "title": "", "text": "You are not actually entitled to any raise at all, unless you had something contractually (legally binding) which made that so. I'm answering this from the UK, but it has been common practice for people over the last 10 years or so to receive no yearly raise, in some sectors. This is what I would consider a bad raise - if wages are not kept in line with inflation, you are effectively earning less every year. In this regard I would not work for any employer who did not offer an annual raise that was at the very least covering the rate of inflation (these rates are easy to find in your country by Googling it). In terms of a standard raise, I would argue there is no such thing. This depends on the industry/sector you work in, your employers opinion of your performance (note I've used the word opinion because sometimes you may think the effort you put in is different to what they think - be prepared to give evidence of what you've achieved for them, with things to back it up). A good raise is anything which is way above a standard raise. Since there is no concise definiton of a standard raise, this is also hard to quantify. As others have mentioned do not stay in a role where you are not being given a raise that covers inflation, because it means every year you have less purchasing power, which is akin to your salary going down. It's very easy to justify to an employer you're leaving - and indeed one you're going to - why you're making the move under these conditions." }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "docid": "119879", "title": "", "text": "I had an internship and they hired me afterwards. Honestly sounded like a good way to break in. I also learned a whole new language for the internship and wanted to continue using it instead of any of the languages taught in school. Not sure if the company would be considered good or bad. I ended up being solo for a long time but also building three applications ground up. I felt like I was improving a lot, especially on projects they gave me lots of leeway on because they were low priority (they just wanted features, no emergency bug tickets, etc). But no peers for most of my work and all the software was privately made and privately licensed/sold. I also had difficulties leaving because I'm an idiot. With no backup me leaving basically meant they would be fucked, and they were my only reference. I was fine taking that salary because I had zero experience (no job. Ever. Not even volunteering. My mother wouldn't let me because of snobbiness), however once I was more valuable to this company and they even praised me for it in the assessments -- they gave out 2% raises. Later my bonuses decreased as my hours and responsibilities increased, too. I asked to be taken off the stressful project, thinking I could salvage this, and they hired a replacement for me to train 3 months later. I got the high leeway project again for 6 months and my job satisfaction was phenomenal by comparison so i stayed. However, then my replacement was fired... So they asked me as a favour to work on the stressful project again and said they would replace me in a month and a half. They didn't. I worked on it for 8 months, I kept asking about it too. Their job posting was also terrible and they roped me in on it at the end and I gained the responsibility of recruiting and vetting (yay for that one actually...). We hired another replacement for me, I trained them too, and left immediately. Actually I regret staying there as long as I did. They gaslit me and I shouldn't have tried to make up for their incompetence. They actually made me a contractor at the end so I was getting paid half of what I originally was. Before I left I asked for a competitive raise and the company owner basically lied about details and tried to tell me what a fuss I was trying to talk about my happiness and what I want once a year... It was surreal but they agreed to bump my pay in the end. However, I was furious by their treatment and reply (which BTW came after I 'suddenly did not show up' despite bolding and clearly stating I would cease work with them and informing the people I worked with on the last day that I heard nothing back from the owner about a new/extended contract), so I said no. I don't know how to negotiate. I am too humble. Selling oneself or seeing someone sell themselves makes me physically uncomfortable. It is completely unnatural, and sets off my bullshit alarms. Actually I seem to have some PTSD from that job, now, too..." }, { "docid": "57263", "title": "", "text": "\"US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is \"\"earned income\"\", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is \"\"capital gains\"\", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's \"\"secretary\"\" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "432808", "title": "", "text": "If you take less than you think you are worth, you will hate that job with a purple passion in short order. Either make peace with the amount you settle on or move on." } ]

[ { "docid": "417800", "title": "", "text": "\"http://www.nadaguides.com/ and http://www.kbb.com/ and http://www.edmunds.com/ are the leading sites to check vehicle values. Also, great how to at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2003079_sell-used-car-california.html Where to sell? You could sell it in your local newspaper classified, small auto newsprint mags/publications, Craigslist, ebay, or just put a sign in the window. The advertising method is up to you. You could also trade the car in to a dealer if you purchase another vehicle from a dealer if they offer that option. (Trade-In's generally bring in less money than private sales as a general rule). Some car places will do consignment requests to help you sell your car. However, they will normally take a percentage of the sale as payment for this service. What paperwork? If you own your car, you should have the title in hand. There are instructions on title on how to sign it over to another person. If you have a loan through a bank, the bank would have this title and you would need to express your interest in selling the property to the bank and work out the details with them. You do not hand over a title to anyone until full payment is made and the property will become theirs. Beyond the title, you will need to fill out a release of liability or report of sale form for the state. Titles have a portion you can mail in or you can fill it out online. This is to report the sale to the state to release liability from your name. You will also need to create a \"\"bill of sale\"\" between you and the buyer. There are many examples online or you can just create your own. You really need just a statement saying I release all interest of the vehicle and no warranty implied to this person with the VIN of the car, model, make, year, the buyers name and signature, and the sellers name and signature. This is your contract with the seller and they use this when they go to register the car in their name. Maintenance Disclosure? This is completely up to the seller on what they want to disclose. You are selling a used car and the buyer should know that. Vehicles with detailed records sell for more money and buyers are more interested in cars that have history records. This is where buyers should be the most careful, so the more records and history you can show, the better they will feel about the purchase. I believe you should share everything you know and any information about the history of the car. The more positive information you can prove/share, the more money or chance of sale you could have. Most money? First, clean the car out. I am amazed at the amount of people that try to sell a car and don't even bother to clean it out. A detail job would be great to get. You are trying to sell it, so you want it to look the best. Next, I would fix anything minor and cheap to fix. The less things wrong can mean more money. Back to your maintenance question, you will want to show how you have maintained the car. People might also ask for a carfax report to prove its clean history. Irresponsible and deceiving people tend to leave out important details in a car history like accidents, flood damage, or having re-built titles. You want to give the most information you can. Do not lie about any detail. Though, this can be a little tough when you are a 2nd or 3rd owner of a car and do not know about the original owners.\"" }, { "docid": "68524", "title": "", "text": "The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now." }, { "docid": "559900", "title": "", "text": "I think it is clear that this has a lot to do with keeping salaries down. The company has a maximal possible salary limit (i.e. the most they would be willing and able to pay) for what you do. You have a minimal possible salary. Both of you know that the current salary is in between the two figures. For negotiations it would be very useful for you to know the maximal possible salary (i.e. the utmost the company would be willing to pay you to stay and continue); the company on the other hand is obliged to keep costs low and hence would like to know your new minimum acceptable salary so they won't make an offer too high. But if you knew all salaries of people around you -- you could make a better guess about your own maximal possible salary. You probably would over-estimate it because we all tend to over-estimate our own relevance and competence, but it would be a better informed guess at least. The company would hence give up an informational advantage which could lead them to have higher costs. So they will ask you how much you were offered at the competitor (i.e. they will be close to your new minimum acceptable salary) while trying to prevent you from learning anything about the maximal possible salary.." }, { "docid": "119883", "title": "", "text": "\"Almost all companies in the US have changed from formal pension programs to 401k plans, and most companies that still have pension programs don't allow new employees to enroll in the new program; only the previous participants who are vested in the pension plan will get benefits while new employees get enrolled in the 401k plan. If this is the case with your prospective employer, then demanding that you be allowed to enroll in the pension plan is likely to be futile; in fact, the likely response may well be \"\"Here is our offer. Take it or leave it\"\" or \"\"We are withdrawing the offer we made\"\" especially if you are in a field where there are plenty of other people who could do the job instead of you. So be sure that you understand what your worth is to the company and how much leverage you have before starting to make counter-offers. With regard to money that you might have vested in your current employer's pension plan, your options are to leave it there until you retire and start getting a pension (generally not advisable in these parlous times when the company might not even exist by then), roll it over into an IRA or into your new employer's 401k plan. This last is the only matter that concerns your prospective employer and where you might need to ask; the new employer's 401k plan might not be structured to accept rollovers. If the money in your current employer's retirement plan is in a pension plan, what is paid out for rolling over might be different (and smaller) than what has been credited to you thus far. For example, my (State Government) pension plan credited 8% interest per annum on the amounts I contributed but this was fake money because had I resigned and withdrawn the pension contributions (for the purpose of rolling over into an IRA or even just taking it as cash), I would have received only my contributions plus only 4.5% interest per annum. The 8% interest credited is available only for the purpose of the purchase of an immediate annuity upon retirement; it is not something that is portable to a new plan, and if I want a lump-sum payout upon retirement instead of a pension in the form of an annuity, it would be the 4.5% rate again...\"" }, { "docid": "206258", "title": "", "text": "\"First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a \"\"friend\"\" or \"\"roommate\"\". \"\"Spouses\"\", \"\"business partners\"\", \"\"domestic partners\"\" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not \"\"roommates\"\". Going \"\"halvsies\"\" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two \"\"friends\"\" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't \"\"own\"\" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a \"\"buyer's option\"\". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts \"\"first-time homebuyers\"\", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation.\"" }, { "docid": "479093", "title": "", "text": "\"If a country had a genuine completely flat income tax system, then it wouldn't matter who paid the tax since it doesn't depend on the employee's other income. Since not many countries run this, it doesn't really make sense for the employee to \"\"take the burden\"\" of the tax, as opposed to merely doing the administration and paying the (probable) amount of tax at payroll, leaving the employee to use their personal tax calculation to correct the payment if necessary. Your prospective employer is probably saying that your tax calculation in Singapore is so simple they can do it for you. They may or may not need to know a lot of information about you in order to do this calculation, depending what the Singapore tax authorities say. If you're not a Singapore national, they may or may not be relying on bilateral tax agreements with your country to assert that you won't have to pay any further tax on the income in your own country. It's possible they're merely asserting that you won't owe anything else in Singapore, and in fact you will have taxes to report (even if it's just reporting to your home tax authority that you've already paid the tax). Still, for a foreign worker a guarantee you won't have to deal with the local tax authority is a good thing to have even if that's all it is. Since there doesn't appear to be any specific allowance for \"\"tax free money\"\" in the Singapore tax system, it looks like what you have here is \"\"just\"\" the employer agreeing to do something that will normally result in the correct tax being paid in your behalf. This isn't uncommon, but it's also not exactly what you asked for. And in particular if you have two jobs in Singapore then they can't both be doing this, since tax is not flat. The example calculation includes varying tax rates for the first X amount of income that (I assume without checking) are per person, not per employment. Joe's answer has the link. In practice in the UK (for example), there are plenty of UK nationals working in the UK who don't need to do a full tax return and whose tax is collected entirely at source (between PAYE and deductions on bank interest and suchlike). In this sense the employer is required by law to take the responsibility for doing the admin and making the tax payments to HMRC. Note that a UK employer doesn't need to know your circumstances in detail to make the correct payroll deductions: all they need is a so-called \"\"tax code\"\", which is calculated by HMRC and communicated to the employer, and which basically encodes how much they can pay you at zero rate before the various tax rate tiers kick in. That's all the employer needs to know here for the typical employee: they don't need to know precisely what credits and liabilities resulted in the figure. However, these employers still don't offer empoyees a net salary (that is, they don't take on the tax burden), because different employees will have different tax codes, which the employer would in effect be cancelling out by offering to pay two people the same net salary regardless of their individual circumstances. The indications seem to be that the same applies in Singapore: this offer is really a net salary subject to certain assumptions (the main one being that you have no other tax liabilities in Singapore). If you're a Singapore millionaire taking that job for fun, you might find that the employer doesn't/can't take on your non-standard tax liability on this marginal income.\"" }, { "docid": "57994", "title": "", "text": "\"I'm a manager of a charity shop so work with a wide range of unpaid volunteers, which requires an especially soft touch (most of the time, everyone is different) or people will just leave. It takes longer, but the overall results are better and more long-lasting. Think of it like pushing a boat from the docks with your hand, always applying a small pressure to get the boat to gradually move where you want, rather than ramming into the side of a boat with a truck - sure it'll get you there quicker, but will cause lasting damage. It's also best to take it slow, as you need time to learn the business and people. Be clear about your approach with your boss, managing their expectations is important. Anyway, here is what I've learnt in my first year or so doing this job, plus things I've learnt along the way in my previous career as a software engineer (radical career change!) where I've managed people and been managed: 1. Be yourself. Don't pretend to be someone you're not, everyone will see right through you in an instant. You'll change over time as you get used to managing people, that's fine, but always be yourself through that. 1. Say \"\"thank you\"\" to everyone at the end of each day as you say goodbye. Mean it. Think of all the work they've done today for you. 1. Spread the shit evenly. Every job has crap parts, make sure you and everyone else gets their fair share and no more. I regularly hoover, clean the bathroom, wash-up, and so on. 1. Ask, don't tell. If you bark orders, people will do them.. but they'll put no effort into it and you'll distance yourself from them. Ask if they could do something for you. It's a politeness, nobody ever says no unless there is an issue which you need to deal with anyway. 1. Pick your battles. Is it worth moaning at someone for that little infraction? Or can you get over that message another way? i.e. I don't like people having drinks on the till counter, so when I take over to cover for them for a break, I just move it. After a while, no drinks appear on the counter. 1. Be honest. If you don't know, say so.. ask for input. Weigh up the options out loud, then pick one, explain why, and go for it - or better yet, get the person that thought of it working with you (not for you) to implement it. If you're wrong, hold your hand up and try the other suggestion(s). 1. Always take responsibility when things go wrong - that is actually your job. When things go well, use *you* and *we*. If things go badly, sometimes *I*, sometimes *we*, but never *you*. 1. Always be pro-active with money. If you owe your staff money for any reason, chase them to give it to them, never let them chase you. If there even *might* be any problems at all with money, let everyone know as soon as you know. Go out of your way to ensure they get what they're owed *now*, not later. I just did this today actually, I forgot to do expenses for someone and switched over the till so there wasn't enough cash in the new till to cover it.. so I just took it from the money to bank, and marked down why there was a discrepancy on the paperwork and will do the same tomorrow when that doesn't match by the opposite amount. I should not do this at all, but it's the right thing to do. 1. Listen carefully. Often employees have problems but won't bring them up, either they don't think anything will get done, or they don't want to get someone in trouble, or something else. However, if you listen and observe carefully, often there are clues to the things that are bothering them and you'll find ways to tackle them. 1. Don't run a team meeting until you know everyone, if you can avoid it. You don't know shit about how the company works, who the people are, what makes them tick, what they do, and so on. All you'll do is come across as a bit of a tool, and distance yourself from them (as boss). When you do run one, just guide it, don't lead it. Always hand over control of the conversation as much as possible, except of course where you've got things that they need to hear. 1. Never joke about your 'power'. i.e. Don't mess about saying how you'll fire them if blah, or how you'll give them all the shit work, or mention pay jokingly, etc. I had a boss that did that when drunk, not in a serious way at all, and he was very widely hated for pretty well nothing other than that. It served as a constant reminder that he's separate from us. 1. Give people room, but don't be taken for a ride. If someone is late once, fine, I wouldn't even mention it. Late again, maybe I'd make a light joke of it. Late again.. we'll have a chat.. always listen to what they have to say, is there any way you can help? But, don't be taken for a ride. I've had people pick me up on being late the very first time I was late, and you know what, I was more late for that job from then on than I've ever been before or since. 1. Try to get your employees to come up with ideas to move the business forwards. It's very easy to look at a business and say \"\"we need this, that, and the other doing.. like this!\"\". But you need to get your employees to buy into it, or they just won't do it properly. It'll be like getting blood out of a stone to start with, but if you're patient and support their ideas most people will come around. You *need* their input as they know their job better than you. 1. EDIT: Always be clear what you want from people, when. Speak with them about the task(s) before-hand to make sure they're comfortable with it and think it can be done in the time. So many times I've been given tasks with unrealistic deadlines, the manager hasn't wanted to listen to my protests, then wonders why it didn't get done in time. It's crazy really, wanting something to be possible doesn't make it so. *A (not so) Quick Example* One volunteer said to me that we should halve the price of all the fiction books to .99 to compete with other shops. I personally don't think that's a good idea (our shop has better quality stock and is much more organised), but I have no evidence to the contrary, and I honestly don't really know.. so I say go for it and support it completely as a good idea. We tried it for a month, and we made exactly the same amount of money.. sold twice as many books, but no extra cash. So it was valuable to do, and we discovered that maybe 1.49 might be a good option to try. But, far more importantly, they saw their ideas put into action right away, and saw the results of that. It empowered them, which is incredibly important for a wide variety of reasons that are too much to go into here, but basically it makes them feel more respected, enjoy their job more, think more about the business, and so on - you know what it's like when you're empowered, how good it feels. However, it's being empowered with the support that's important, something which you personally going into your new job don't feel you have, which leads to the anxiety and so on I'm sure you're feeling now. Don't put your employees in that position if you can help it. There is also another reason why I outright supported their idea from the offset. It didn't work (although we didn't loose anything) and I thought it wouldn't, but I can say \"\"*we* tried\"\". It wasn't down to that one person, they didn't feel bad that it didn't work because I was right behind it, and it's my job to take responsibility. If it had been *their* idea that had failed, they wouldn't give any ideas ever again, and everyone else would be put off too. As soon as anyone tries to take personal responsibility, and they will, stick to your guns in supporting them.. stronger than ever. Now we're getting a lot of ideas all the time, they're having in-depth discussions amongst each other, they're pro-active, and so on. As a business we're doing much better now because of it.. profits are up 15% from last year and we've only just begun to kick things off, and that's going against a national trend downwards. We've had several critical changes to our shop layout, back-room organisation, results reporting, stock handling processes, and so on.. all from volunteer ideas and feedback. So the 15% is actually the tip of the iceberg, what we've got in place now should allow us to grow more quickly too. And remember, you can make suggestions too of course.. but they're just that, suggestions. Suggest them to your employees, speak with several of them, then get back to them when you've made a decision. Don't say \"\"I'm thinking of trying this\"\", say \"\"I was just thinking.. what about this? Do you think it would work?\"\" and talk about it. Think of arguments against your idea, see if they counter them, and so on. Now.. how many of these changes did I think of before-hand and want to enact? About half.. so we've got a significant number of successful ideas that I personally hadn't thought of, everyone's happier and working harder for the business, and we have a bright future. I have more ideas too, and people listen to and respect them now just like I have with them. I think that's the key to it all really. Show your employees respect, and they'll show you it in return.\"" }, { "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": "552290", "title": "", "text": "When I was looking for positions and they brought up salary, I always gave a range with what I wanted at the low end and then add on 20-40k to the high end. Example 90-130, oh, wow, we can't pay 130, would 95 be ok? sure, that's in my range, sounds great. My 2nd job MANY moons ago they asked the same question, I gave a range (too narrow) and they gave the top end of the range, I knew I asked for too little.... My current company has salary bands which encompass a job title and a salary range, and the job title's ranges can overlap: ex: Junior 20-60, Regular: 40-90, Senior: 60-120, Lead: 100-160. This allows for regional variances in cost of living and for raises without a promotion into a new band." }, { "docid": "131255", "title": "", "text": "I had a similar situation when I was in college. The difference was that the dealer agreed to finance and the bank they used wanted a higher interest rate from me because of my limited credit history. The dealer asked for a rate 5 percentage points higher than what they put on the paperwork. I told them that I would not pay that and I dropped the car off at the lot with a letter rescinding the sale. They weren't happy about that and eventually offered me financing at my original rate with a $1000 discount from the previously agreed-upon purchase price. What I learned through that experience is that I didn't do a good-enough job of negotiating the original price. I would suggest that your son stop answering phone calls from the dealership for at least 1 week and drive the car as much as possible in that time. If the dealer has cashed the check then that will be the end of it. He owes nothing further. If the dealer has not cashed the check, he should ask whether they prefer to keep the check or if they want the car with 1000 miles on the odometer. This only works if your son keeps his nerve and is willing to walk away from the car." }, { "docid": "465410", "title": "", "text": "&gt; if you went somewhat into debt, say $30k, for a major with good job prospects and a high salary, it will probably be a good decision. Which is exactly what I did, and it worked out very well for me. There is still the opportunity cost I mentioned though. The average person makes $30K out of high school, so that is more than a million dollars in opportunity costs if you go to school for four years instead of going to work. Far more than that if you can earn more than $30K, which there is a good chance you can if you have the talent to get into college. Additionally, if a career has good job prospects and high salaries, employers aren't really going to be concerned about your education save where the law mandates it (you cannot be a doctor without the education by law, for instance). It is the lack of capable workers that drives the salaries up and it is that same lack of capable workers that force employers to consider just about anyone. There may be an argument to be made that an education can help as a signal in jobs where competition of fierce, but that same competition will drive the market rate of the job way down, which doesn't exactly seem like a win to me. That's awesome that it worked out for you, I'm just not sure it should be considered a safe or even good investment. While the returns can be there in some cases, it seems like the stakes are pretty high." }, { "docid": "576626", "title": "", "text": "I've had 50% raise offers before. Start ups might pay more to attract talent but you look at what they are doing and realize they will probably be out of cash flow once the venture capitalist money dries up. If you like changing jobs sure. I've been at the same company for 12 years. My salary has gone up 4x since I started so whatever. It's just easier. I know one of my offers went out of business in less then 8 months..." }, { "docid": "569207", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;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) &gt;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? &gt;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. &gt;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&amp;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": "45305", "title": "", "text": "\"Holy fuck do you seriously not understand that I was trying to understand your perspective before I explained an alternative? Do you really find it offensive when people ask you questions before presenting a solution? Do you have such a limited attention span that you forgot I began the discussion by saying \"\"I'm happy to answer your question if you will first answer mine\"\", then tried to obtain clarity in your answer by saying \"\"Is it fair to say that you don't believe that \"\"only taxes can provide these things\"\", but you are simply unaware of how anything other than taxes can provide these things?\"\" You seriously look like an asshole when you claim that asking questions to understand your perspective is \"\"not offer[ing] an alternative\"\" when I *started the discussion* by telling you I'd offer an alternative *after I understood what you believe*.\"" }, { "docid": "181213", "title": "", "text": "\"How many HVAC firms exist in your area? If it's more than 1 or 2, it's unusual for them to be able to collude. If you feel underpaid, go interview. You might find that you can get an offer for more $$$ elsewhere. Don't reveal how much you currently make, if asked (this will distort the amount of the job offer). At that point ask your current employer if they're willing to match. If not, then move to the new company. Some employees feel uncomfortable doing this. You want to say, \"\"I like working here, but it doesn't make business sense for me to work for less than market rates.\"\" Also share your offer with your coworkers, at least the ones you like. This will help equalize the market. Employees can easily punish a stingy company with several departures.\"" }, { "docid": "232425", "title": "", "text": "Did he say why he wants double your asking price? Did you explain to him how you came up with the offer you made? Sometimes exploring interests (why people make their decisions) is more helpful than bargaining over positions. If you understand why he wants double your offer (and he understands why you're offering a lower price) you might get closer to an agreement. Another option is to defer to a disinterested third-party who will pick a valuation for the company, and you can agree to abide by their decision (and pick a payout schedule if necessary) Think about what you'll do if you can't come to an agreement: is walking away from the business an option and going out on your own? What would happen to him if you simply walk away? It might be in his best interest to negotiate. Or will you reluctantly pay his asking price? Or can you sell the business to him? One option when partners need to split up is to have one of them set a value for the company, and the other decides if he wants to be the buyer or seller. (It's like the trick with kids where one cuts the cake and the other selects which slice he wants.) Maybe you can come up with a fair way of valuing the company. A lawyer will be needed to draw it all up, but you can agree on the framework of the deal ahead of time and save some money and stress. Last thought: when a win-win agreement isn't possible, sometimes the next best compromise is where everyone feels like he got equally screwed. That's ok, too." }, { "docid": "577531", "title": "", "text": "If that's not a politically loaded title to your post I don't know what is. Wal-Mart pays it's employees the wage that it is competitive, in line with similar types of work, and what it is able to afford and still offer the pricing they can on the products they offer (and still make money). What they're doing is legal and ethical. Additionally, if the people that work at Wal-Mart need more money than their jobs offer, what concern of their employer is that? If the people don't like that they don't make enough money at their job and have to take welfare, then it's their responsibility to improve their situation, not their employer's to give them more money for the same work just because they don't earn enough. Is Wal-Mart's (or any place of employment for that matter) mission to enrich their employees or to do business to make a profit? I hope your answer is the latter. If it's not I think you're less an advocate of business and more an advocate of socialism and wealth redistribution." }, { "docid": "69565", "title": "", "text": "You are paid hourly? I would have expected most IT people to be on salary Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it. Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications? Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on. If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of moving up Hope this helps" }, { "docid": "290441", "title": "", "text": "\"Thank God you have your child back, it is so awesome that you finally found a medical treatment that worked. It must have been a truly trying time in your lives. That situation is an important template in personal finance. Through no fault of your own, a series of events occurred that caused you to spend far more money then you anticipated. Per your post this was complicated by lost income due to economic situations. What is to say that this does not happen again in the future? While we can all hope that our child does not get sick, there are other events that could also fit into this template. Because of this I hate all options you present. Per your post, you are pretty thin with free cash flow and have high income, and yet you are looking to borrow more. That is a recipe for disaster with it being made worse as you are considering putting your home at risk. The 20K per year per kid sounds like a live at the university state school; or, a close by private school. Your finances do not support either option. There are times when the word \"\"No\"\" is in order when answering questions. Doing a live at home community college to university will cost you a total of about 30K per kid rather than the 80K you are proposing. Doing this alone will greatly reduce the risk you are attempting to assume. Doing that and having your child work some, you could cash flow college. That is what I would recommend. Given that you are so thin, you will also have to put constraints on college attendance. No changing major three times, only majors with an employable skills, and studying before partying. It may be worth it to wait a year of two before attending if a decision cannot be made. I was in a similar situation when my son started college. High income, but broke. He worked and went to a community college and was able to pay for the bulk of it himself. From there he obtained a job with a healthy salary and completed his degree at the University. It took him a little longer, but he is debt free and has a fantastic work ethic.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "191977", "title": "", "text": "Not-very-serious companies always try to reduce your pretended salary. This also happens in Argentina. My advice is to look for another opportunity because you have to take into account that if you join the company this will happen again; for example, in the future, they may lowball you on raises." } ]

[ { "docid": "45305", "title": "", "text": "\"Holy fuck do you seriously not understand that I was trying to understand your perspective before I explained an alternative? Do you really find it offensive when people ask you questions before presenting a solution? Do you have such a limited attention span that you forgot I began the discussion by saying \"\"I'm happy to answer your question if you will first answer mine\"\", then tried to obtain clarity in your answer by saying \"\"Is it fair to say that you don't believe that \"\"only taxes can provide these things\"\", but you are simply unaware of how anything other than taxes can provide these things?\"\" You seriously look like an asshole when you claim that asking questions to understand your perspective is \"\"not offer[ing] an alternative\"\" when I *started the discussion* by telling you I'd offer an alternative *after I understood what you believe*.\"" }, { "docid": "417800", "title": "", "text": "\"http://www.nadaguides.com/ and http://www.kbb.com/ and http://www.edmunds.com/ are the leading sites to check vehicle values. Also, great how to at: http://www.ehow.com/how_2003079_sell-used-car-california.html Where to sell? You could sell it in your local newspaper classified, small auto newsprint mags/publications, Craigslist, ebay, or just put a sign in the window. The advertising method is up to you. You could also trade the car in to a dealer if you purchase another vehicle from a dealer if they offer that option. (Trade-In's generally bring in less money than private sales as a general rule). Some car places will do consignment requests to help you sell your car. However, they will normally take a percentage of the sale as payment for this service. What paperwork? If you own your car, you should have the title in hand. There are instructions on title on how to sign it over to another person. If you have a loan through a bank, the bank would have this title and you would need to express your interest in selling the property to the bank and work out the details with them. You do not hand over a title to anyone until full payment is made and the property will become theirs. Beyond the title, you will need to fill out a release of liability or report of sale form for the state. Titles have a portion you can mail in or you can fill it out online. This is to report the sale to the state to release liability from your name. You will also need to create a \"\"bill of sale\"\" between you and the buyer. There are many examples online or you can just create your own. You really need just a statement saying I release all interest of the vehicle and no warranty implied to this person with the VIN of the car, model, make, year, the buyers name and signature, and the sellers name and signature. This is your contract with the seller and they use this when they go to register the car in their name. Maintenance Disclosure? This is completely up to the seller on what they want to disclose. You are selling a used car and the buyer should know that. Vehicles with detailed records sell for more money and buyers are more interested in cars that have history records. This is where buyers should be the most careful, so the more records and history you can show, the better they will feel about the purchase. I believe you should share everything you know and any information about the history of the car. The more positive information you can prove/share, the more money or chance of sale you could have. Most money? First, clean the car out. I am amazed at the amount of people that try to sell a car and don't even bother to clean it out. A detail job would be great to get. You are trying to sell it, so you want it to look the best. Next, I would fix anything minor and cheap to fix. The less things wrong can mean more money. Back to your maintenance question, you will want to show how you have maintained the car. People might also ask for a carfax report to prove its clean history. Irresponsible and deceiving people tend to leave out important details in a car history like accidents, flood damage, or having re-built titles. You want to give the most information you can. Do not lie about any detail. Though, this can be a little tough when you are a 2nd or 3rd owner of a car and do not know about the original owners.\"" }, { "docid": "394905", "title": "", "text": "I don't buy new cars anymore, but I've helped family members negotiate prices on new cars recently. There are various online services to see the average price paid, as well as the low outliers. I've looked at truecar.com for instance to see what others have paid within 50 miles of my zip-code. I think the only way for you to know you're being offered a good deal is to see if any of the other dealers that have not responded are willing to talk when you offer them $22,300 which the dealer above suggested was break-even point. If none of them respond, then you know you're really at the bottom of the negotiating window. If one of them does respond, then you can go back to that internet sales manager and ask why another dealership (do not disclose which one) is willing to sell it to you for less than $22,400 (do not disclose how much lower they offered to sell it for). In my experience, most dealers will sell at or just below the break-even price at the end of the quarter so that they can beat other dealerships out for the quota. That gives you a week and a half to find the bottom price before going in on New Years Eve to seal the deal." }, { "docid": "536604", "title": "", "text": "\"Dude, you are totally moving the goal posts. First of all, the fact that you had to crawl through my comment history and came up with a completely unrelated response rather than addressing my point is pretty pathetic, and a pretty common behavior who are wrong and don't want to admit it. I don't \"\"hate\"\" California, I think it's overrated. And I think it's overrated because what you get isn't worth what you pay. That isn't being \"\"biased\"\", it's cause and effect. If it didn't cost 3x as much to live in California as anywhere else, I would like it a lot more. And the math doesn't work out. You in your original comment said the typical salary is 170K. Now that you have been proven wrong you are now claiming it's 200K+. That isn't the \"\"math working out\"\", that's distorting reality until it lines up with your preconceived notions. And now you are restricting \"\"nature\"\" to mountains (since apparently anything that isn't red river gorge is \"\"ant hills\"\" and therefore not worth anything). Again moving the goalposts. And even if your idea of \"\"things to do in nature\"\" means \"\"I like backpacking in the mountains exclusively\"\", you would be much better off in places like Utah than California. Repeatedly saying \"\"I've done the math, I've been offered a job\"\" doesn't mean anything when I've already shown you the math doesn't work out, and I too have been offered a 6 figure job in SF. I'm clearly not the one that's biased, you are. Look, if you have built up California into some mythical place so sacred that you are so clearly willing to do mental gymnastics you are demonstrating in order to make reality conform with your personal notions, great. But for everyone else, the \"\"math\"\" (as in actual math, not changing the numbers around until it makes sense), doesnt work out.\"" }, { "docid": "404278", "title": "", "text": "\"Let me paint you a picture to show you why this does not make sense. It is never fair to ask a business to pay a \"\"living wage\"\". It is always fair to ask a worker to chose their jobs based on their needs. Here's why. I ran a business when I was a teenager, doing web development. I did not make very good money but it pushed me to learn and to teach myself to meet the needs of the few clients that I did manage to find. Over the course of the business the thought had crossed my mind to maybe get help from my peers, maybe talk to classmates and see if any of them might have wanted to go into business with me, help me drum up more work, or help me do design or development. As soon as the thought crossed my mind I realized right away that I would never be able to do it, because the regulation was just way too big for little old sole-proprietorship me to deal with. Not only was it confusing, but it was dangerous to me, if I did it wrong I knew I could be sued and lose more than my tiny little business made. On top of the regs involved, I personally was not making minimum wage! What I was making though, was experience. This was more valuable than all the money I made combined, because I worked this way by myself for three years, learning more about my craft all the while. I have parlayed that experience into a ten year long career that currently supports my family, working for someone else. Now imagine if I could pay anyone whatever we both agreed on. Imagine if I could talk to a classmate in highschool and say \"\"hey, im not making much, but I can pay you x to start with and I will certainly teach you what I know\"\". it always struck me as selfish, unearned moral superiority to sit here and mandate a minimum wage, you price teenagers and entry-level workers out of the market because people can't afford an army of $20 per hour workers. Its so ignorant of the narrow margins that these business have to face. It is also really short-sighted and money-obsessed to boil a job down to it's wages alone. Minimum wage destroys an ancient method of generating skilled workers: the apprentice system. Also, there is a really ugly moral side to this. Person A offers person B X amount to do Y... Why does the government have the right to say \"\"No! you can't pay them X because it is not X enough!\"\". Our economy and work is far more complex than minimum wage. it is an old idea that is nothing but a drain on our economy. TL;DR - I would have added three or more skilled workers to our economy in high school if I did not have to pay them minimum wage. I personally was priced out of hiring people because of it, so I hate it. Millennials need not wonder why no one can find a job.\"" }, { "docid": "589470", "title": "", "text": "Not only are absolute incomes (adjusted for inflation) not increasing, but purchasing power is also decreasing. Decades ago, the salary of one middle class worker can raise a family. Nowadays, you can't even buy a home with two salaries, especially in large metro areas. There are numerous factors why this is happening: 1. Globalization. Why pay an American more when something can be done or made in Vietnam for a fraction of the cost? Prices of non-renewable resources will increase as third-world countries modernize and their populations demand the same luxuries that we have. 2. Automation. Automation has eliminated many jobs further driving income inequality. There are people with very high salaries since automation are making them much more productive and then there are jobs that have been completely eliminated because of automation. I know of factories that laid off a large fraction of their operators because the machines are now automated (but they did a hire few more engineers and technicians to increase productivity). 3. Scarcity of land. Everyone wants to live in areas where the jobs are but you can only build so much housing in one area, so house prices go up faster than wages. People with good jobs in industries where jobs are clustered in one place (biotech, software, semiconductors, finance, etc.) actually can afford less real estate than one would think based on their income just because of their location. These issues will become even more relevant as technology continues to develop and globalization continues." }, { "docid": "479093", "title": "", "text": "\"If a country had a genuine completely flat income tax system, then it wouldn't matter who paid the tax since it doesn't depend on the employee's other income. Since not many countries run this, it doesn't really make sense for the employee to \"\"take the burden\"\" of the tax, as opposed to merely doing the administration and paying the (probable) amount of tax at payroll, leaving the employee to use their personal tax calculation to correct the payment if necessary. Your prospective employer is probably saying that your tax calculation in Singapore is so simple they can do it for you. They may or may not need to know a lot of information about you in order to do this calculation, depending what the Singapore tax authorities say. If you're not a Singapore national, they may or may not be relying on bilateral tax agreements with your country to assert that you won't have to pay any further tax on the income in your own country. It's possible they're merely asserting that you won't owe anything else in Singapore, and in fact you will have taxes to report (even if it's just reporting to your home tax authority that you've already paid the tax). Still, for a foreign worker a guarantee you won't have to deal with the local tax authority is a good thing to have even if that's all it is. Since there doesn't appear to be any specific allowance for \"\"tax free money\"\" in the Singapore tax system, it looks like what you have here is \"\"just\"\" the employer agreeing to do something that will normally result in the correct tax being paid in your behalf. This isn't uncommon, but it's also not exactly what you asked for. And in particular if you have two jobs in Singapore then they can't both be doing this, since tax is not flat. The example calculation includes varying tax rates for the first X amount of income that (I assume without checking) are per person, not per employment. Joe's answer has the link. In practice in the UK (for example), there are plenty of UK nationals working in the UK who don't need to do a full tax return and whose tax is collected entirely at source (between PAYE and deductions on bank interest and suchlike). In this sense the employer is required by law to take the responsibility for doing the admin and making the tax payments to HMRC. Note that a UK employer doesn't need to know your circumstances in detail to make the correct payroll deductions: all they need is a so-called \"\"tax code\"\", which is calculated by HMRC and communicated to the employer, and which basically encodes how much they can pay you at zero rate before the various tax rate tiers kick in. That's all the employer needs to know here for the typical employee: they don't need to know precisely what credits and liabilities resulted in the figure. However, these employers still don't offer empoyees a net salary (that is, they don't take on the tax burden), because different employees will have different tax codes, which the employer would in effect be cancelling out by offering to pay two people the same net salary regardless of their individual circumstances. The indications seem to be that the same applies in Singapore: this offer is really a net salary subject to certain assumptions (the main one being that you have no other tax liabilities in Singapore). If you're a Singapore millionaire taking that job for fun, you might find that the employer doesn't/can't take on your non-standard tax liability on this marginal income.\"" }, { "docid": "437194", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"" }, { "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": "203334", "title": "", "text": "To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary." }, { "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": "384541", "title": "", "text": "\"An employee costs the company in four ways: Salary, taxes, benefits, and capital. Salary: The obvious one, what they pay you. Taxes: There are several taxes that an employer has to pay for the privilege of hiring someone, including social security taxes (which goes to your retirement), unemployment insurance tax (your unemployment benefits if they lay you off), and workers compensation tax (pays if you are injured on the job). (There may be other taxes that I'm not thinking of, but in any case those are the main ones.) Benefits: In the U.S. employers often pay for medical insurance, sometimes for dental, life, and disability. There's usually some sort of retirement plan. They expect to give you some number of vacation days, holidays, and sick days where they pay you even though you're not working. Companies sometimes offer other benefits, like discounts on buying company products, membership in health clubs, etc. Capital: Often the company has to provide you with some sort of equipment, like a computer; furniture, like a chair and desk; etc. As far as the company is concerned, all of the above are part of the cost of having you as an employee. If they would pay a domestic employee $60,000 in salary and $20,000 in taxes, then assuming the same benefits and capital investment, if a foreign employee would cost them $0 in taxes they should logically be willing to pay $80,000. Any big company will have accountants who figure out the total cost of a new employee in excruciating detail, and they will likely be totally rational about this. A smaller company might think, \"\"well, taxes don't really count ...\"\" This is irrational but people are not always rational. I don't know what benefits they are offering you, if any, and what equipment they will provide you with, if any. I also don't know what taxes, if any, a U.S. company has to pay when hiring a remote employee in a foreign country. If anybody on here knows the answer to that, please chime in. Balanced against that, the company likely sees disadvantages to hiring a foreign remote employee, too. Communication will be more difficult, which may result in inefficiency. My previous employer used some contractors in India and while there were certainly advantages, the language and time zone issues caused difficulties. There are almost certainly some international bureaucratic inconveniences they will have to deal with. Etc. So while you should certainly calculate what it would cost them to have a domestic employee doing the same job, that's not necessarily the end of the story. And ultimately it all comes down to negotiations. Even if the company knows that by the time they add in taxes and benefits and whatever, a domestic employee will cost them $100,000 a year, if they are absolutely convinced that they should be able to hire an Austrian for $60,000 a year, that might be the best offer you will get. You can point out the cost savings, and maybe they will concede the point and maybe not.\"" }, { "docid": "147245", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't have a lot of time to keep going back and forth. It seems like we differ on a bunch of things. But I do want to respect your final question when you ask me what I thought was wrong in that post. You mention things like the government regulating things like water and air. Those are common goods. These cannot be in the hands of a corporation. Man did not put those things there. So, man cannot take ownership of these things. Bottled water, running water, oxygen tanks, etc, those things are man-made products or services for a market. I can go to a public body of water and swim in it because no one owns it. I can go to the shore in my favorite bathing suit and swim in the beautiful ocean water if I so please without needing to pay or trade with anyone for access to the ocean. But I cannot start pumping water out of the ocean and into a big tank for me to haul away. The government needs to step in and put an end to anyone that does that sort of thing. Same goes for anyone trying to tamper with the water or doing something that is harmful to people or the life living in the water. Government needs to stop all of that. Also, yes the \"\"municipality then cleans and purifies the water and pumps it to your house in public facilities and treats the resultant sewage\"\". But are you also claiming that it was the government that created the solution to clean and purify our water supplies? Because they sure didn't. As for electricity, the way it is delivered and made available to our homes is a commodity. Electricity is natural, but just like how water when bottled becomes a consumer product, the generation and delivery of electricity to our homes is a product and service. If a company delivering electricity to customers in a city is using public infrastructure, then of course they have to share it. That makes sense as the electric company does not own the utility poles, streets, etc. The government should regulate that. The government handling trade agreements is a job of the government. We need them to do that. I believe in an open, free, and consumer-driven market. I don't want a lot of regulation on this - such as tariffs that Trump has talked about - because history shows that could lead to the costs inflating with quality not following suit. His rants on jobs fleeing offshores followed by his talks of tariffs on foreign imports would be a terrible idea. I want the government to negotiate trade deals as long as it is in the best interest for this country. This is what grows an economy. Imagine if Apple couldn't import iPhones unless they paid a 30% tax since it was assembled in China. That would kill sales of iPhones because Apple would have to pass most - if not all - of that cost on to the consumer. Samsung phones (for argument's sake, let's say these aren't made in China. I don't think they are anyway, but just saying) would begin to take a larger share of the consumer market because prices would be lower since Samsung didn't have to pay a 30% tax. As for the coffee pot from china starting a fire in my house. No one would by a coffee pot if there was a known fire-starting issue with those coffee pots. The government telling china that coffee pots need to be a certain specification is really irrelevant. The issue would resolve itself because no one would by the coffee pots. Once this became a known problem, stores would take it off the shelves and no longer sell it. We have cars that are recalled left and right. Car seats for infants and toddlers that are recalled every year. So on and so forth. I know the federal government has a recall process, but usually its the manufacturer that will announce the recall first. If there is a bad product out there, it will die out and no longer be made available for purchase. I don't see the the federal government slapping regulations on car manufacturers that mandate \"\"all tires must not fall off of the car while in motion\"\". No. Instead, the manufacturer, who is in the business of making money, which they need to sell cars to make money, would create a car where the tires are not likely to ever fall off while a car is in motion (or even when idle). The last thing I want to touch on is the Obamacare mandate. If I don't want something, why am I being forced to pay for it? Why do you agree with this? I am already paying into social security and I wish I wasn't. I will make my own investments with my income to prepare for retirement. Why should I pay for health insurance if I don't want it. The government should not be making my life choices for me. I have one responsibility on this earth as it pertains to my behavior. That is to respect others inalienable rights such as the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as I do not harm someone in an immoral way (e.g. steal, kill, physical harm, property damage, disclose personally identifiable information, etc), I should be free to live my life without government interference. I am fine with paying into a system for true welfare cases. Some people fall into bad situations that they could not help. Some people are born into a terrible situation. Those people need help. But I don't want to pay for stupid ass things like Chuck Schumer's idiotic idea of Medicare for people over 55. He wants to lower the medicare age by 10 years. This is the insane progressive ideas that literally just worsen societies. [\"\"In 2016, Medicare benefit payments totaled $675 billion, up from $375 billion in 2006.](http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/) A $300 billion increase in just 10 years and that schmuck wants to lower eligibility by 10 years. If this were ever signed into law, I am (plus other American workers) going to be forced to pay into this. That means less money for me to save and invest for retire or an emergency. Less for my daughter. Less for my mortgage. Less for me to continue my education. Less on whatever I choose to do with my money that I spend 40 hours/week in an office for. My time is spent doing something asked of me by a corporation. That corporation pays me for my time. It's a mutual agreement resulting in a trade of money for my services. I do it because I want to do things and provide for my family. I don't do it because someone decided to spend 4 years for a degree in graphic design and can't get a job. I also don't do it for people that have a cash only income (both illegal immigrants and legal citizens do this) and don't declare all of their income making them eligible for Obamacare. And, lastly, I do not do it for people that decide to live off of the system and are physically and mentally fit to work in some capacity. I should not be forced to pay a mandate just because I'm here breathing. Obama - just like all progressives - normalized this \"\"breathing\"\" tax. It isn't right. Of course, Obamacare falls apart if there aren't enough healthy people to subsidize the sick people. That's why the mandate was obviously put in place. But just because the mandate is needed to make it work, doesn't make it right to force on people. My mortgage needs to get paid. If all my neighbors chipped in $75/month, I could make it work. Well, is it right to force my neighbors to pay my mortgage? Nope. I made the decision to buy my house. They did not. Not to mention, with socialized health care, services are rationed and that is just sickening. Big Gov: \"\"Oh, you're 80 years old and you need a knew knee? Well, you did live for 80 years, so we're going to deny that request.\"\" In a system where I pay for my own health care and insurance, I can get a new hip and a new knew if I needed it and it would all be done within a week or 2 most likely. You have 51 week-old Charlie Gard who Britain and the wonderful EU (sarcasm) ordered to die. He did so just last week even though his parents had the money to fly him here and have a doctor perform a potentially life-saving surgery. Yep. When the government owns healthcare, they own your health. That's my other big reason for hating Obamacare. It truly is a bad thing. We have world history that can easily show anyone what it looks like if we keep going down this path. I am done for now. I am not trying to convince you of anything. That usually doesn't happen as people are set in their ways. If anything, this exchange of messages is for the person(s) out there that want to learn what is right and what is wrong. What liberty is and what it isn't. Taxing people as a way to redistribute wealth is wrong. Imposing mandates so people buy a product/service is just straight up wrong. Our income is a representation of our time spent fulfilling the responsibilities of an agreement that we voluntarily made with an employer. Our money is our time. Our time is our liberty. And if we aren't infringing on the rights of others during our time, then the government needs to stay out. Catch you later.\"" }, { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. &gt; Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. &gt; The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. &gt; A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. &gt; Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "403610", "title": "", "text": "its not about ruin, its about less and less incentive through decreased net profits. Your business yields 50% net profits off the gross? Acceptable. Through increased liability it yields only 40%? Less incentive. If I told you your paycheck would remain the same, but gas would go up 20% and you've got a 40 mile commute. Would you keep the same job? At what point do you leave that job? How close to 100% of your salary cost in gas would you continue working? What if 80% of your net income went to gas?" }, { "docid": "176334", "title": "", "text": "A simple and low-interest loan is probably the least likely to cause acrimony, aside from a direct gift. You seem to be describing an equity stake in their house, where some portion of the appreciation in value accrues to you (relative to your initial investment). An equity stake in their house probably doesn't make much sense. You sound as though you're not going to do any of the work aside from the contribution of money. Equity might make sense as a way to reward you for efforts, such as home design or renovation, that increase the value of the home. You probably don't want to be in a position where you are together improving the property and your payback only comes when she sells for more money. What if you have different ideas of how to do it? She has to live there and may want improvements for her needs rather than for buyers. What if she asks you to pay for a portion of the improvement costs or resents you not offering? What if she doesn't want to sell for some reason, so your money is locked up with her family choices? Renovations can often be stressful, so these decisions may be made at difficult times. Either a gift or a low-interest family loan may be simpler for your needs. You can just set the loan terms you want, say payoff over 10 years or a deferred payment schedule. If she gets in trouble, you could perhaps delay or forgive payments. I don't know the UK tax consequences of a loan of this nature, if any. As a general proposition, it's best to set clear and simple expectations at the beginning, and avoid agreements that require multiple decisions to be made consensually in the future, possibly during a time of stress." }, { "docid": "384175", "title": "", "text": "\"Without knowing the details of your financial situation, I can only offer general advice. It might be worth having a financial counselor look at your finances and offer some custom advice. You might be able to find someone that will do this for free by asking at your local church. I would advise you not to try to get another loan, and certainly not to start charging things to a credit card. You are correct when you called it a \"\"nightmare.\"\" You are currently struggling with your finances, and getting further into debt will not help. It would only be a very short-term fix and have long-lasting consequences. What you need to do is look at the income that you have and prioritize your spending. For example, your list of basic needs includes: If you have other things that you are spending money on, such as medical debt or other old debt that you are trying to pay off, those are not as important as funding your basic needs above. If there is anything you can do to reduce the cost of the basic needs, do it. For example, finding a cheaper place to live or a place closer to your job might save you money. Perhaps accepting nutrition assistance from a local food bank or the Salvation Army is an option for you. Now, about your car: Your transportation to your job is very much one of your basic needs, as it will enable you to pay for your other needs. If you can use public transportation until you can get a working car again, or you can find someone that will give you a ride, that will solve this problem. If not, you'll need to get a working car. You definitely don't want to take out another loan for a car, as you are already having trouble paying the first loan. I'm guessing that it will be less expensive to get the engine repaired than it will be to buy a new car at this point. But that is just a guess. You'll need to find out how much it will cost to fix the car, and see if you can swing it by perhaps eliminating expenses that aren't necessary, even for a short time. For example, if you are paying installments on medical debt, you might have to skip a payment to fix your car. It's not ideal, but if you are short on cash, it is a better option than losing your job or taking out even more debt for your car. Alternatively, buying another, functional car, if it costs less than fixing your current car, is an option. If you don't have the money to pay your current car loan payments, you'll lose your current car. Just to be clear, many of these options will mess up your credit score. However, borrowing more, in an attempt to save your credit score, will probably only put off the inevitable, as it will make paying everything off that much harder. If you don't have enough income to pay your debts, you might be better off to just take the credit score ding, get back on your feet, and then work to eliminate the debt once you've got your basic needs covered. Sorry to hear about your situation. Again, this advice is just general, and might not all apply to your financial details. I recommend talking to the pastor of a local church and see if they have someone that can sit down with you and discuss your options.\"" }, { "docid": "292667", "title": "", "text": "\"sorry mate, its not about being loyal. it's about what you negotiate. you stay with a company long enough and you'll only rack up your annual 2% pay increase and see minor raises until you're promoted to incompetence. If you really want to see healthy compensation than you need to realize it's about negotiating to your true value to the market - not just join a company and cross your fingers for the best. Frankly, if someone is willing to pay more ($$ and other benefits) then you'd do yourself and those you support a disservice not going for it. There are times when you should be less aggressive about it for the long haul, but don't forget, a company's job is to turn a profit which means getting workers to work at the lowest possible salary. And when a corporation thinks someone is \"\"loyal\"\" and won't move, then a smart company will go ahead and test that assumption. Re: entry level expectations about their true value - absolutely agree, expect entry compensation. But don't think being \"\"loyal\"\" is what changes that. Only increasing your actual value does - not just because you've been around forever.\"" }, { "docid": "386264", "title": "", "text": "In general no, if you just have one employer and work there with the same salary for the whole year. Typically an employer does tax withholding by extrapolating your monthly income to the entire year and withholding the right amount so that at the end, what is withheld is what you owe. It's not a surprise to them when your income crosses a tax bracket threshold, because they knew how much they were paying you and knew when you would cross into another bracket, so they factored that in. If you have multiple jobs or only worked for part of the year, or if your income varied from month to month (e.g., you got a raise) there could be a discrepancy between what is withheld and what you owe, because each employer only knows about what it's paying you, not what money you may have earned from other sources. (Even here, though, the discrepancy wouldn't be due to the tax brackets per se.) You can adjust your withholdings on form W-4 if needed, to tell the employer to withhold more or less than they otherwise would." } ]

[ { "docid": "280838", "title": "", "text": "It depends on your situation. Take the job only if you really need the job and there's no job close to your experience and salary expectations. IMO $70K is not much in NYC given the cost of living there, even if you stay in Jersey City, NJ and take a train. However, it does depend on your lifestyle. Also, if HR is not willing to keep their commitment now, they generally won't keep any other commitments like negotiated perks as part of the job offer. However, sometimes you may have to compromise because of other factors that make the job desirable: the team, the work, and enthusiasm for the business." } ]

[ { "docid": "403318", "title": "", "text": "&gt; I feel the same way about your arguments, but I still try to respond to the content of your arguments rather than my assumptions about them. You're right, I went ad hominem. Apologies. &gt; Then I guess we have fundamentally different ideas about what is freedom and what is not. You seem to think that forcing someone to negotiate with a party, against their will, is not a violation of any of their rights. We have the same goal, and that's to have a society that results the maximum quality of life for the most amount of people. However, being a pragmatist, this is where I usually fail to find common ground with the libertarian view point. What should be a right and what should be restricted by law is totally subjective. So since any law can be seen as a violation of someone's rights, the argument that a law is wrong simply because it does so is invalid. To me a demonstration that the benefits outweigh the costs is a more powerful argument, though it should probably be shown that there is a significant margin between the two, otherwise I'd have to air on the side of individual rights. We don't have the right to advertise sugar pills as a cure for cancer, we don't have the right to drive our cars after 10 beers, we don't the right to sit on a park bench and start masturbating...we don't have these rights because the cost to our society is greater than the benefits (maybe these aren't the greatest examples but you get the idea). So as for making an employer send a couple representatives to a bargaining table being a violation of their rights, yes it is, but this is such a small cost compared to the benefit of diminishing the chance of work stoppages that have a rippling effect on the economy and the resulting unrest created when people feel like they have no hope [(read the introduction to the NLRA)](https://www.nlrb.gov/national-labor-relations-act) I'd also argue that the NLRA protects more rights than it takes away - mainly the rights of free association and speech. I could raise the issues of unions contributing to a more democratic and socially just society, but I'm guessing that'd fall on deaf ears. In general though, I think you give the idea of a union too much credit. Do you know how hard it is to get colleagues to start seeing one another as having shared interests? It ain't easy, that's for sure. &gt; The solution is to let the process of economic development run its course until child labor is not necessary. You may very well be right about this, but a child working a mundane job instead of building their mind, diminishes the life of one not strong enough yet to determine their own course, is just so terribly wrong. So I just have a hard time accepting this, especially living in a world where there is such with such a huge wealth disparity. &gt; A union is not a self-interested party. A union represents self-interested parties, who are not directly affected by the destruction of their industry 30 years into the future, since they would have retired by then. Unions are generally made up of the socially conscious type - no one gets into organizing for the money. I can't say for certain if this challenges your point, however I don't exactly see the difference between the unionist who is going to retire and the CEO is going to retire and the shareholders who can pull out when put their money elsewhere when it suits them. &gt; Many of the laws and union-backed agreements that ended up destroying many of America's industries took decades to have their full effect. It wasn't a case of a law being passed, and the next year, the industry going bankrupt. Examples needed where the industries were actually bankrupted, not just moved overseas to increase profits because workers will settle for less. &gt; Why should employers pay out the most they can afford, and why should laws be passed to force employers to do so? The only reason people invest is to profit. If all profits had to be paid to employees, there would be no incentive to invest, and therefore no increase in capital/productivity. I never said that employers should be paying out all they can afford, and you setting up this straw man only reiterates my point that these discussions with libertarian types all too often come down to this zero-sum game, where an increase in working conditions will trigger bankruptcy, which I think stems from a belief that supply-side economics is keeping standards the highest they can possibly be. If a company has an operating income of $1 bil, what is giving a 5% pay raise to workers going to do, except make that operating income slightly less? I suppose it'd be better if that money were invested back into the company...but wait, aren't people a resource to invest in? And one that offers a high rate of return? Take the the lock-out of ConEd workers in NYC for example: ConEd's profits were over 2 billion when their previous contract was signed, and a few years later when their contract expired the profits were still that high. What did ConEd do? They came to the table with an offer that slashed their benefits tremendously, and locked-out all the workers when the union rejected it. How can the case be made that ConEd couldn't afford to give workers what they already had? Has their value all of a sudden dropped? I don't think so. This is just greed, and doesn't contribute to a healthy society." }, { "docid": "437194", "title": "", "text": "\"Assuming the numbers work out roughly the same (and you can frankly whip up a spreadsheet to prove that out), a defined benefit scheme that pays out an amount equal to an annuitized return from a 401(k) is better. The reason is not monetary - it is that the same return is being had at less risk. Put another way, if your defined benefit was guaranteed to be $100/month, and your 401(k) had a contribution that eventually gets to a lump sum that, if annuitized for the same life expectancy gave you $100/month, the DB is better because there is less chance that you won't see the money. Or, put even simpler, which is more likely? That New York goes Bankrupt and is relieved of all pension obligations, or, the stock market underperforms expectations. Neither can be ruled out, but assuming even the same benefit, lower risk is better. Now, the complication in your scenario is that your new job pays better. As such, it is possible that you might be able to accumulate more savings in your 401(k) than you might in the DB scheme. Then again, even with the opportunity to do so, there is no guarantee that you will. As such, even modelling it out really isn't going to dismiss the key variables. As such, can I suggest a different approach? Which job is going to make you happier now? Part of that may be money, part of that may be what you are actually doing. But you should focus on that question. The marginal consideration of retirement is really moot - in theory, an IRA contribution can be made that would equalize your 401(k), negating it from the equation. Grant you, there is very slightly different tax treatment, and the phaseout limits differ, but at the salary ranges you are looking at, you could, in theory, make decisions that would have the same retirement outcome in any event. The real question is then not, \"\"What is the effect in 20 years?\"\" but rather, which makes you happier now?\"" }, { "docid": "168613", "title": "", "text": "You are not actually entitled to any raise at all, unless you had something contractually (legally binding) which made that so. I'm answering this from the UK, but it has been common practice for people over the last 10 years or so to receive no yearly raise, in some sectors. This is what I would consider a bad raise - if wages are not kept in line with inflation, you are effectively earning less every year. In this regard I would not work for any employer who did not offer an annual raise that was at the very least covering the rate of inflation (these rates are easy to find in your country by Googling it). In terms of a standard raise, I would argue there is no such thing. This depends on the industry/sector you work in, your employers opinion of your performance (note I've used the word opinion because sometimes you may think the effort you put in is different to what they think - be prepared to give evidence of what you've achieved for them, with things to back it up). A good raise is anything which is way above a standard raise. Since there is no concise definiton of a standard raise, this is also hard to quantify. As others have mentioned do not stay in a role where you are not being given a raise that covers inflation, because it means every year you have less purchasing power, which is akin to your salary going down. It's very easy to justify to an employer you're leaving - and indeed one you're going to - why you're making the move under these conditions." }, { "docid": "292667", "title": "", "text": "\"sorry mate, its not about being loyal. it's about what you negotiate. you stay with a company long enough and you'll only rack up your annual 2% pay increase and see minor raises until you're promoted to incompetence. If you really want to see healthy compensation than you need to realize it's about negotiating to your true value to the market - not just join a company and cross your fingers for the best. Frankly, if someone is willing to pay more ($$ and other benefits) then you'd do yourself and those you support a disservice not going for it. There are times when you should be less aggressive about it for the long haul, but don't forget, a company's job is to turn a profit which means getting workers to work at the lowest possible salary. And when a corporation thinks someone is \"\"loyal\"\" and won't move, then a smart company will go ahead and test that assumption. Re: entry level expectations about their true value - absolutely agree, expect entry compensation. But don't think being \"\"loyal\"\" is what changes that. Only increasing your actual value does - not just because you've been around forever.\"" }, { "docid": "552290", "title": "", "text": "When I was looking for positions and they brought up salary, I always gave a range with what I wanted at the low end and then add on 20-40k to the high end. Example 90-130, oh, wow, we can't pay 130, would 95 be ok? sure, that's in my range, sounds great. My 2nd job MANY moons ago they asked the same question, I gave a range (too narrow) and they gave the top end of the range, I knew I asked for too little.... My current company has salary bands which encompass a job title and a salary range, and the job title's ranges can overlap: ex: Junior 20-60, Regular: 40-90, Senior: 60-120, Lead: 100-160. This allows for regional variances in cost of living and for raises without a promotion into a new band." }, { "docid": "386264", "title": "", "text": "In general no, if you just have one employer and work there with the same salary for the whole year. Typically an employer does tax withholding by extrapolating your monthly income to the entire year and withholding the right amount so that at the end, what is withheld is what you owe. It's not a surprise to them when your income crosses a tax bracket threshold, because they knew how much they were paying you and knew when you would cross into another bracket, so they factored that in. If you have multiple jobs or only worked for part of the year, or if your income varied from month to month (e.g., you got a raise) there could be a discrepancy between what is withheld and what you owe, because each employer only knows about what it's paying you, not what money you may have earned from other sources. (Even here, though, the discrepancy wouldn't be due to the tax brackets per se.) You can adjust your withholdings on form W-4 if needed, to tell the employer to withhold more or less than they otherwise would." }, { "docid": "589470", "title": "", "text": "Not only are absolute incomes (adjusted for inflation) not increasing, but purchasing power is also decreasing. Decades ago, the salary of one middle class worker can raise a family. Nowadays, you can't even buy a home with two salaries, especially in large metro areas. There are numerous factors why this is happening: 1. Globalization. Why pay an American more when something can be done or made in Vietnam for a fraction of the cost? Prices of non-renewable resources will increase as third-world countries modernize and their populations demand the same luxuries that we have. 2. Automation. Automation has eliminated many jobs further driving income inequality. There are people with very high salaries since automation are making them much more productive and then there are jobs that have been completely eliminated because of automation. I know of factories that laid off a large fraction of their operators because the machines are now automated (but they did a hire few more engineers and technicians to increase productivity). 3. Scarcity of land. Everyone wants to live in areas where the jobs are but you can only build so much housing in one area, so house prices go up faster than wages. People with good jobs in industries where jobs are clustered in one place (biotech, software, semiconductors, finance, etc.) actually can afford less real estate than one would think based on their income just because of their location. These issues will become even more relevant as technology continues to develop and globalization continues." }, { "docid": "149215", "title": "", "text": "Both of my primary home purchases were either at, or close to asking price. My first house was during the local seller's market in 2001-2002. There were waiting lines for open houses. In hindsight we bought more home than we needed at the time but that had nothing to do with offering asking price. It was the market for the type of property (location and features) at that time. My second house was a little after the peak in 2008. The value had come down quite a bit and the property was priced on the low side versus the comps. To this day my second house still appraises higher than what we paid for it even though it was at asking price. As a third example, my brother-in-law got into a bidding war on his first home purchase and ended up buying it for above asking price. This was normal for the houses in the area he was looking at. With real estate, like other people have said, it really is important to either know the area you are looking at or to get an agent you trust and have them explain their reasons for their offer strategy through the comps. Yes agents need to make money but the good ones have been in the business a while and also live off of repeat business when you sell your house or refer friends and family to them. Agents do a lot less work when it comes to selling by the way so they would love for you to come back to them when it's time to sell. If I'm not happy with the way things are going with my agent I would have a heart to heart with them and give them a chance to correct the relationship. I've spoken to a realtor friend in the past about getting out of buyer's contracts and he told me it's a lot easier as a buyer than a seller. The buyer has most of the power during the process. The seller just has what the buyer wants." }, { "docid": "576001", "title": "", "text": "\"Advice from a long-time flipper You negotiate price based on four factors and none of these are set in stone: How much you love the house. Is this house a 100 out of 100 for you or a 85 or a 75. How much have you compromised. What is the likelihood that you will find a house that will make you just as happy or at least close. You might have a house that is a 95 out of 100 but there are five other houses that you rated between 93-95. What is your timeframe. Know that playing hardball takes longer and can knock you out of the game sometimes and takes a little while to find a new game. What is the relative housing market. Zillow and other such sites are crap. Yes the give you a generalized feel for a community but their estimates are off sometimes by 30-40%. Other factors like street/noise/updates to house/ and so on are huge factors. You will have to really navigate the area and look for very comparable houses that have recently sold. Then use average housing movements to extrapolate your future houses cost. As a buyer you have two jobs. Buy the house you want and manage your agent. Your agent wants you to buy a house as soon as possible and to increase their reputation. Those are their only two factors of working. By you offering closer to the asking price they are able to get their sales as quick as possible. Also other agents will love working with them. In fact your agent is selling you on the home and the price. Agents hardly worry about you paying too much - as most buyers oversell the deal they get on their home. Admitting that you paid too much for your house is more of an admission of ignorance of yourself, compared to agent incompetency. If you decide to low-ball the owner, your agent spends more time with you and possibly reduces their reputation with the selling agent. So it is common for agents to tell you that you should not offer a low price as you will insult the owner. My advice. Unless the home is truly one of a kind for the market offering anything within 20% of the asking price is DEFINITELY within range. I have offered 40% less. If a house is asking too much and has been on the market for 8 months there is no way I am going in with an offer of even 15% lower. That leaves you no room. What you do? First think about how much you think this house could sell for in the next 3 months. In your example let's say 80K based on conservative comps. Then take the most you would actually pay for it. Let's say 75K. 70K is about as high of an opening offer I would go. Do NOT tell your agent your true breaking points. If you tell your agent that you would go to 75K on the house. Then that is what their negotiations will start at. Remember they want the sale to happen as soon as possible. Very likely the other agent - especially if they know each other - will ask if how flexible you are going to be. Then next thing you know your agent calls you back and says would you be willing to go 77K or the owner is firm at 80K. Do not give up your position. You should never forecast to your agent what your next bid or offer would be for the house. Never get into scenarios or future counters. So you offer 70K. If your agent asks you how firm that is? \"\"Very firm\"\". If your agent doesn't want to take the offer to them, \"\"Thank you for being my agent, but I am going to be working with someone that represents what I want.\"\" If the owner says \"\"You are done too me cheapskate.\"\" Well that's how it goes. If the owner stays firm at asking or lowers - then you can come up if you feel comfortable doing so. But understand what your goal is. Is it to get a house or to get a good deal on a house? Mine was always to get a good deal on a house. So I might offer 72K next. If they didn't budge, I am out. If they moved down I went from there. Easy Summary The fact is if they aren't willing to negotiate with you enough it always ends the same. You give them your take-it-or-leave-it offer. You tell your agent that if he/she comes back with one penny over it comes from their commission (god I have said this 100 times in my life and it is the best negotiation tactic you have with your agent). The owner says yes or no and it is over.\"" }, { "docid": "168796", "title": "", "text": "From your question and how you have framed it, I get you find Agressive Sales tactics disturb the buying process for you. ;) I understand because I also find the whole process of Research / Negotiating / Buying / Owning / Using is all on one continuum, so anything that ruins the process will likely lose the sale or enjoyment of the item, at the end of the day. [Very long answer .... Sorry :) ] The answer to this is to KNOW what you want before you have to deal with the Sales people. A good Sales person likes a customer who knows what they want. I would suggest that you follow my 'Buying Process' (Much you have already done) : Before you Buy: Identify the item you want and the max/min 'realistic' price you would buy at. [Stick to this price else 'Buyers Remorse' may bite later.] Write the questions you have down on paper before you visit the Dealer. Write the answers you want on the same list, if known. Decide which questions are most important and therefore must get the answer you want. These should be the questions you ask first. Mark these on the list. Re-visit points 1-3 are they complete and to your satisfaction ? Would you buy if all the answers & the price are right ? If NO then re-visit point 1-3 else you are not ready to buy now !!! If YES then Organise your visit to the Dealer. [Book appointment etc if needed.] At Dealer: Meet your Sales person and clearly state what you want (the item) and importantly when you intend to buy, if all your questions are answered to your satisfaction. There is no need to discuss price at this point as the 'haggling' is only possible IF the questions are answered to your satisfaction. Do not give information such as your maximum budget or similar requests, as they give the sales person the upper hand to maximise his/her pricing. If asked state that your budget is conditional on the answers you get. As the questions are answered assess the answer and assign +/- to the question on your list. If any of your most critical / important questions are answered in the negative, they are the reasons you have to call it a day and walk out. You can assess whether they are worth ignoring but you will need to factor this into your price and if you have identified your questions correctly there should be little room for debate. Assuming you have got all your questions answered you should know what you are buying and have assessed what is a reasonable price for it, if you still want it as this point. If you have lost interest, say so and let the Sales person go. Don't waste their time. They may make some sort of offer to you BUT don't forget that if you have doubts now they will not go away easily no matter what the 'great' price is. If you want it then continue. Buying your Item: [None of the following is really usefull if you have told the Sales person your Budget, as they will be aiming for the highest end of your budget. You will often find that the best price is very close to your maximum budget !!! :)] Do not forget your realistic price range, this should limit your buying price no matter what tactics are used by the Sales person. Only you know what you are prepared to pay and if an extra 1% or 50% is considered worth it to you, if you have to have the item :) Regardless, you have to have some idea of your limit and be prepared to stick to it. You must be able to walk away if the price is silly and not worth it. Assuming you have not been smitten by your item and funds are NOT unlimited, ask for the price and assess it against your price range. At this point I can only offer pointers as there are no 'magic' rules to get what you want at the lowest price. The only advice I would offer is that you will be lucky to get something at your 1st offer price unless the seller really needs to sell, because of this your 1st offer should be less than your price range lowest band. You will need to assess how much less but be prepared to get a 'No' response. If you get a 'Yes' and your research is good 'Buy It !!!' If you get too enthusiastic a response, question your research & if not sure bail out [No Sale] :) At this point you are likely to be 'Haggling' so you need to be ready for all the 'Must buy Now' tactics. If you have clearly stated your wants and timescales there is no reason to be pulled in by these tactics and they can be ignored until the price has reached the level you are happy with. If the price is not moving where you want than clearly state you cannot 'buy at that price'. If you get a total stop and no movement than you need to assess your 'need' and if priced too high then you should walk out. Remember if you stated that you had a timescale to buy of 1/2/3 weeks you should act like you have 1/2/3 weeks to keep looking. Any eagerness on your part will tell the Sales person that you have lied !!! :) You can always come back and try again, reminding the Sales person that the 'item' is still there and perhaps it is priced too high to sell and make the same offer. !!! (A bit of cheek sometimes works.) If the price is close and you still want it and the Sales person is not moving you need to try walking out while stating that you would love the 'item' if it was priced better, if no improved offer as you go, try an increased offer but again you need to assess how much and remember you can only go up, or walk out and come back another day. If the price is at a level you are happy with then you should have no reason not to buy (if you have followed this process) but this does not mean that you should be forced into buying now if you do not want to. Regardless of any 'Must buy now' tactics if the price is right and you cannot buy now, tell the Sales person when you CAN buy and see if you can get an agreement with this. It is unfair to expect a price to be held for an indeterminate time, so you do need to state when you could buy if not now when a price has been agreed. This is a point where the deal may break down if the Sales person thinks they have a sale and trys to force the Sale now. Once again you have to assess your 'need' and whether buying now is better than walking out. If the deal breaks down there is nothing stopping you from coming back and offering the same price when you can buy. A final option is to agree if a deposit can be left to reserve the item until you can buy. This gives the Sales person some assurance that you will come back and is sometimes NON-Refundable unless you agree otherwise before you pay, so check this detail first. (This tends to be smaller Dealers but generally in the UK the large companies offer refundable deposits as part of their Customer Service, the advantage of using larger Stores/Dealers etc.) Apologies for the epic reply, hope it helps." }, { "docid": "576626", "title": "", "text": "I've had 50% raise offers before. Start ups might pay more to attract talent but you look at what they are doing and realize they will probably be out of cash flow once the venture capitalist money dries up. If you like changing jobs sure. I've been at the same company for 12 years. My salary has gone up 4x since I started so whatever. It's just easier. I know one of my offers went out of business in less then 8 months..." }, { "docid": "384175", "title": "", "text": "\"Without knowing the details of your financial situation, I can only offer general advice. It might be worth having a financial counselor look at your finances and offer some custom advice. You might be able to find someone that will do this for free by asking at your local church. I would advise you not to try to get another loan, and certainly not to start charging things to a credit card. You are correct when you called it a \"\"nightmare.\"\" You are currently struggling with your finances, and getting further into debt will not help. It would only be a very short-term fix and have long-lasting consequences. What you need to do is look at the income that you have and prioritize your spending. For example, your list of basic needs includes: If you have other things that you are spending money on, such as medical debt or other old debt that you are trying to pay off, those are not as important as funding your basic needs above. If there is anything you can do to reduce the cost of the basic needs, do it. For example, finding a cheaper place to live or a place closer to your job might save you money. Perhaps accepting nutrition assistance from a local food bank or the Salvation Army is an option for you. Now, about your car: Your transportation to your job is very much one of your basic needs, as it will enable you to pay for your other needs. If you can use public transportation until you can get a working car again, or you can find someone that will give you a ride, that will solve this problem. If not, you'll need to get a working car. You definitely don't want to take out another loan for a car, as you are already having trouble paying the first loan. I'm guessing that it will be less expensive to get the engine repaired than it will be to buy a new car at this point. But that is just a guess. You'll need to find out how much it will cost to fix the car, and see if you can swing it by perhaps eliminating expenses that aren't necessary, even for a short time. For example, if you are paying installments on medical debt, you might have to skip a payment to fix your car. It's not ideal, but if you are short on cash, it is a better option than losing your job or taking out even more debt for your car. Alternatively, buying another, functional car, if it costs less than fixing your current car, is an option. If you don't have the money to pay your current car loan payments, you'll lose your current car. Just to be clear, many of these options will mess up your credit score. However, borrowing more, in an attempt to save your credit score, will probably only put off the inevitable, as it will make paying everything off that much harder. If you don't have enough income to pay your debts, you might be better off to just take the credit score ding, get back on your feet, and then work to eliminate the debt once you've got your basic needs covered. Sorry to hear about your situation. Again, this advice is just general, and might not all apply to your financial details. I recommend talking to the pastor of a local church and see if they have someone that can sit down with you and discuss your options.\"" }, { "docid": "68524", "title": "", "text": "The tax savings of being 1099 can be significant. It depends on your salary, and what you can deduct. You may want to consult with an accountant. The social security tax, for the self employed, is 12.4% of profit not on revenue. If you can write off more than half of the income as expenses then you could be paying less than a w-2 employee. Also you might make a higher salary as a 1099, it is rare the offer the same compensation for a W-2 as a 1099 as the former has higher expenses for the employer. It is hard to know without actual numbers, actual expected expense deductions and so forth. Which is why I would suggest consulting with an accountant. You may want to talk to one in the state where he will be working rather than where you live now." }, { "docid": "30388", "title": "", "text": "In this case, trust the real estate agent; negotiating experience is one of the things you selected them for. Especially if they're suggesting a lower number than you expected, since they get paid on commission and so may be biased the other way. Part of their job is to look for hints about how motivated this seller is and what price they might accept, as opposed to what price they hope to get. And remember that the default assumption is that the two parties will meet in the middle somewhere, which means it's customary to offer 10% less to signal that you could probably be talked into it if they drop the price about 5%. This is like bridge-hand bidding: it's a semi-formalized system of hints about levels of interest, except with fewer conventions and less rationality. As far as the seller paying the closing costs: that's really part of the same negotiation, and doing it that way makes the discussion more complicated for the seller since they need to figure out how much more to charge you to cover this cost. If they offer, great, factor that into what you are willing to pay... but I wouldn't assume it or ask for it. Edit: Yes, unless you have engaged a Buyer's Agent (which I recommend for first-time buyers and maybe all huyers), their fiduciary duty is to the seller. But part of that duty is to make the sale happen. If the price goes too high and you walk away, neither the agent nor the seller make money. A bad agent can be as bad as a bad car salesman, sure. But if you don't like and mostly trust your agent, you are working with the wrong agent. That doesn't mean you give them every bit of information the seller might want, but it does mean you probably want to listen to their input and understand their rationalle before deciding what your own strategy will be." }, { "docid": "69565", "title": "", "text": "You are paid hourly? I would have expected most IT people to be on salary Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it. Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications? Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on. If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of moving up Hope this helps" }, { "docid": "317812", "title": "", "text": "\"Hey, I hope I didnt come off as harsh on you. I'm not sure how much I can help, but Id be glad to give you tips on getting you name in the door with the big companies, and other career-y advice. If you haven't already though, please read this article on [negotiating from the perspective of an engineer](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/). I don't think anyone truly enjoys negotiating, but with experience it becomes much easier and more natural. See yourself as an asset - because you obviously are if they are offering their money to you! And in reading your post - let me say this. Never see your company as your friend. Yeah, you might be friends with your boss and coworkers, you all might be in a softball league and hangout, but when it comes to the hours of 9-5, to someone somewhere in your chain of command you are a line item that costs them X amount of money and makes them X amount. Don't forget that, and don't let yourself have \"\"feelings\"\" towards the company. If the company isn't smart enough to hire a backup, even after you have advised them to do so, that is their doing and any repercussions are for them to take. I'm not saying be unflexible, but if you ever, ***ever***, start to think about making or not making a major decision (such as not leaving a company) that is bad for your bottom line in exchange for helping out the company or due to \"\"feeling\"\" in some way towards the company, stop, forget your feelings, and do what logic alone tells you to do. You and your company are not friends. If the company can find someone cheaper to do your job, they will do so with no feelings towards you. And the being solo part -- yeah, thats not a good way to go early in your career. I've made it my objective to surround myself with people smarter than me who are willing to guide me, even at the cost of current financial gains, simply because as a young professional learning from others is one of the top priorities for me now. Running solo - being shoved to a corner to do your work alone - is a huge no-no IMO.\"" }, { "docid": "232425", "title": "", "text": "Did he say why he wants double your asking price? Did you explain to him how you came up with the offer you made? Sometimes exploring interests (why people make their decisions) is more helpful than bargaining over positions. If you understand why he wants double your offer (and he understands why you're offering a lower price) you might get closer to an agreement. Another option is to defer to a disinterested third-party who will pick a valuation for the company, and you can agree to abide by their decision (and pick a payout schedule if necessary) Think about what you'll do if you can't come to an agreement: is walking away from the business an option and going out on your own? What would happen to him if you simply walk away? It might be in his best interest to negotiate. Or will you reluctantly pay his asking price? Or can you sell the business to him? One option when partners need to split up is to have one of them set a value for the company, and the other decides if he wants to be the buyer or seller. (It's like the trick with kids where one cuts the cake and the other selects which slice he wants.) Maybe you can come up with a fair way of valuing the company. A lawyer will be needed to draw it all up, but you can agree on the framework of the deal ahead of time and save some money and stress. Last thought: when a win-win agreement isn't possible, sometimes the next best compromise is where everyone feels like he got equally screwed. That's ok, too." }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "docid": "265013", "title": "", "text": "\"On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option \"\"not yet resolved\"\" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was). So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process. And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its \"\"150-item inspection you can rely on\"\". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its \"\"forecourt price\"\", \"\"private selling price\"\", \"\"part exchange price\"\", and \"\"auction price\"\". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "432020", "title": "", "text": "What I do in those cases - assuming I like the job - is ask for a review in 3-months. They usually take this to mean I want a raise-review and give me a raise. What I really want to know is how I'm doing. Some managers will only give feedback in a review instead of every day." } ]

[ { "docid": "131255", "title": "", "text": "I had a similar situation when I was in college. The difference was that the dealer agreed to finance and the bank they used wanted a higher interest rate from me because of my limited credit history. The dealer asked for a rate 5 percentage points higher than what they put on the paperwork. I told them that I would not pay that and I dropped the car off at the lot with a letter rescinding the sale. They weren't happy about that and eventually offered me financing at my original rate with a $1000 discount from the previously agreed-upon purchase price. What I learned through that experience is that I didn't do a good-enough job of negotiating the original price. I would suggest that your son stop answering phone calls from the dealership for at least 1 week and drive the car as much as possible in that time. If the dealer has cashed the check then that will be the end of it. He owes nothing further. If the dealer has not cashed the check, he should ask whether they prefer to keep the check or if they want the car with 1000 miles on the odometer. This only works if your son keeps his nerve and is willing to walk away from the car." }, { "docid": "373949", "title": "", "text": "Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO." }, { "docid": "265013", "title": "", "text": "\"On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option \"\"not yet resolved\"\" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was). So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process. And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its \"\"150-item inspection you can rely on\"\". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its \"\"forecourt price\"\", \"\"private selling price\"\", \"\"part exchange price\"\", and \"\"auction price\"\". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]\"" }, { "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": "386264", "title": "", "text": "In general no, if you just have one employer and work there with the same salary for the whole year. Typically an employer does tax withholding by extrapolating your monthly income to the entire year and withholding the right amount so that at the end, what is withheld is what you owe. It's not a surprise to them when your income crosses a tax bracket threshold, because they knew how much they were paying you and knew when you would cross into another bracket, so they factored that in. If you have multiple jobs or only worked for part of the year, or if your income varied from month to month (e.g., you got a raise) there could be a discrepancy between what is withheld and what you owe, because each employer only knows about what it's paying you, not what money you may have earned from other sources. (Even here, though, the discrepancy wouldn't be due to the tax brackets per se.) You can adjust your withholdings on form W-4 if needed, to tell the employer to withhold more or less than they otherwise would." }, { "docid": "30388", "title": "", "text": "In this case, trust the real estate agent; negotiating experience is one of the things you selected them for. Especially if they're suggesting a lower number than you expected, since they get paid on commission and so may be biased the other way. Part of their job is to look for hints about how motivated this seller is and what price they might accept, as opposed to what price they hope to get. And remember that the default assumption is that the two parties will meet in the middle somewhere, which means it's customary to offer 10% less to signal that you could probably be talked into it if they drop the price about 5%. This is like bridge-hand bidding: it's a semi-formalized system of hints about levels of interest, except with fewer conventions and less rationality. As far as the seller paying the closing costs: that's really part of the same negotiation, and doing it that way makes the discussion more complicated for the seller since they need to figure out how much more to charge you to cover this cost. If they offer, great, factor that into what you are willing to pay... but I wouldn't assume it or ask for it. Edit: Yes, unless you have engaged a Buyer's Agent (which I recommend for first-time buyers and maybe all huyers), their fiduciary duty is to the seller. But part of that duty is to make the sale happen. If the price goes too high and you walk away, neither the agent nor the seller make money. A bad agent can be as bad as a bad car salesman, sure. But if you don't like and mostly trust your agent, you are working with the wrong agent. That doesn't mean you give them every bit of information the seller might want, but it does mean you probably want to listen to their input and understand their rationalle before deciding what your own strategy will be." }, { "docid": "368649", "title": "", "text": "\"For example, Biff Spoiles started an animation studio and production developing company to produce animations -- something in the ballpark of $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. -- and he had a $12K/yearly salary. I have no clue what you mean, as others have mentioned. (I'm not sure what the \"\"12 million\"\" refers to? Do you mean \"\"total cost of animations created by the company in a year\"\" or? If so, \"\"12 million\"\" would amount to say 5 to 20 major, brand name TV commercials, for example. Do you mean the \"\"cost of plant\"\" - so, for a \"\"TV commercial production company\"\" you mean purchasing desks, drawing pads, Porsches, and so on?) Your specific example of a \"\"film or TV-commercial production company\"\" is a bad example, it's not really a \"\"business\"\" - that is to say, it does not rely on capital and return on capital. The way famous \"\"film or TV-commercial production companies\"\" happens is precisely like this: A young guy/girl G (perhaps a designer or filmmaker) is working, just as you say, for a menial wage at a film company. (G got that first job perhaps out of art school.) G gets a chance at doing a photo shoot, animation, or helping direct a TV commercial. G does a fantastic job. Later that year, a large important animation or commercial job arrives at the company; due to the earlier excellent result, G is allowed to work on the new one. G again he does a fantastic job. Soon, within that company, G is a highly-regarded animator or director and has attracted fame amongst colleagues and clients. Eventually, G hears of a company (XYZ Hotel) that needs a TV ad made. (Or an animation, or whatever.) G says to XYZ, look, you could spend $230,000 with a production company, and in reality they'd have me direct it anyway. I'm leaving to work independently, so I will do your job for only $190,000. In a word, XYZ says \"\"Yes\"\" and hands over a cheque for $190,000. G spends $160,000 on the usual actors, cameramen, editing, etc, and uses 2 months of G's own time, and pockets $5000 after tax. G then doesn't get a job for a couple months, and then gets three more in the new year. Because the commercial for XYZ was so good, XYZ gave him another couple to do, for another product line. Eventually G has just enough money coming in that he \"\"hires\"\" a few freelance people for a few weeks here and there ... a cameraman, illustrator, gopher, and so on. Eventually G has enough TV ads solidly booked G can risk actually hiring long-time friend P as a producer. P spends most of her time actually bringing in more work - and it builds from there. Eventually. You have a very busy, well-known in the industry, TV commercial production company with many staff and endless clients (example, say, http://rsafilms.com) It might be at some point in there (say, around year three), G would like to borrow the odd million bucks to basically \"\"help with cashflow.\"\" The answer to that is nothing more than \"\"through business contacts, G knows a wealthy dentist/whoever who is prepared to do that.\"\" But note carefully that at that point, G's company is already very firmly established, famous for doing 20 spectacular animations/commercials, and so on. (Note too that 999 times out of 1000 when this happens, the money evaporates and the dentist D never sees a penny back. In that case G \"\"apologizes\"\".) Only much much later once the company has many, many staff and great cashflow, could the production company actually borrow from a bank, or perhaps from \"\"actual investors\"\", which is more what you have in mind. regarding your four categories. Numbers 1 and 3 are totally wrong; they do not work at all like you are asking. indeed the very simple answer is: \"\"borrow money\"\" to start a category 1 or 3 type of business. It's totally inconceivable. (The only exception would be if you literally just have an extremely rich Uncle, who loans you a few million to \"\"start an animation studio\"\" - which would be completely whacky. Because in that example: company XYZ could not care less if you \"\"have\"\" an animation studio (ie: your Uncle has given you a platinum card, and you bought a building, some drawing pads, and a few dozen Macs). XYZ just couldn't care less. All they care about is your folio of work. In this example, RSA would get the job :) ) My guess is you're thinking people somehow magically go around \"\"borrowing money\"\" to get businesses like that started. (Your examples 1 and 3.) The simple answer is they don't and can't - your fears are assuaged! :)\"" }, { "docid": "170200", "title": "", "text": "take what you can get man. first off if you're offered a good job then take it. I dont know what kind of school you went to and i dont know pay scales in reno area. i am super close to nyc and if a good company gave me 40-50k i would take it in a heartbeat and my cost of living, i would assume is higher than Reno's. You would be really selling yourself short if you turned down a job because they offered you less than what you expected. 40k seems reasonable for now but whats more valuable is experience which will lead to a job that pays you what you really want." }, { "docid": "147245", "title": "", "text": "\"I don't have a lot of time to keep going back and forth. It seems like we differ on a bunch of things. But I do want to respect your final question when you ask me what I thought was wrong in that post. You mention things like the government regulating things like water and air. Those are common goods. These cannot be in the hands of a corporation. Man did not put those things there. So, man cannot take ownership of these things. Bottled water, running water, oxygen tanks, etc, those things are man-made products or services for a market. I can go to a public body of water and swim in it because no one owns it. I can go to the shore in my favorite bathing suit and swim in the beautiful ocean water if I so please without needing to pay or trade with anyone for access to the ocean. But I cannot start pumping water out of the ocean and into a big tank for me to haul away. The government needs to step in and put an end to anyone that does that sort of thing. Same goes for anyone trying to tamper with the water or doing something that is harmful to people or the life living in the water. Government needs to stop all of that. Also, yes the \"\"municipality then cleans and purifies the water and pumps it to your house in public facilities and treats the resultant sewage\"\". But are you also claiming that it was the government that created the solution to clean and purify our water supplies? Because they sure didn't. As for electricity, the way it is delivered and made available to our homes is a commodity. Electricity is natural, but just like how water when bottled becomes a consumer product, the generation and delivery of electricity to our homes is a product and service. If a company delivering electricity to customers in a city is using public infrastructure, then of course they have to share it. That makes sense as the electric company does not own the utility poles, streets, etc. The government should regulate that. The government handling trade agreements is a job of the government. We need them to do that. I believe in an open, free, and consumer-driven market. I don't want a lot of regulation on this - such as tariffs that Trump has talked about - because history shows that could lead to the costs inflating with quality not following suit. His rants on jobs fleeing offshores followed by his talks of tariffs on foreign imports would be a terrible idea. I want the government to negotiate trade deals as long as it is in the best interest for this country. This is what grows an economy. Imagine if Apple couldn't import iPhones unless they paid a 30% tax since it was assembled in China. That would kill sales of iPhones because Apple would have to pass most - if not all - of that cost on to the consumer. Samsung phones (for argument's sake, let's say these aren't made in China. I don't think they are anyway, but just saying) would begin to take a larger share of the consumer market because prices would be lower since Samsung didn't have to pay a 30% tax. As for the coffee pot from china starting a fire in my house. No one would by a coffee pot if there was a known fire-starting issue with those coffee pots. The government telling china that coffee pots need to be a certain specification is really irrelevant. The issue would resolve itself because no one would by the coffee pots. Once this became a known problem, stores would take it off the shelves and no longer sell it. We have cars that are recalled left and right. Car seats for infants and toddlers that are recalled every year. So on and so forth. I know the federal government has a recall process, but usually its the manufacturer that will announce the recall first. If there is a bad product out there, it will die out and no longer be made available for purchase. I don't see the the federal government slapping regulations on car manufacturers that mandate \"\"all tires must not fall off of the car while in motion\"\". No. Instead, the manufacturer, who is in the business of making money, which they need to sell cars to make money, would create a car where the tires are not likely to ever fall off while a car is in motion (or even when idle). The last thing I want to touch on is the Obamacare mandate. If I don't want something, why am I being forced to pay for it? Why do you agree with this? I am already paying into social security and I wish I wasn't. I will make my own investments with my income to prepare for retirement. Why should I pay for health insurance if I don't want it. The government should not be making my life choices for me. I have one responsibility on this earth as it pertains to my behavior. That is to respect others inalienable rights such as the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as I do not harm someone in an immoral way (e.g. steal, kill, physical harm, property damage, disclose personally identifiable information, etc), I should be free to live my life without government interference. I am fine with paying into a system for true welfare cases. Some people fall into bad situations that they could not help. Some people are born into a terrible situation. Those people need help. But I don't want to pay for stupid ass things like Chuck Schumer's idiotic idea of Medicare for people over 55. He wants to lower the medicare age by 10 years. This is the insane progressive ideas that literally just worsen societies. [\"\"In 2016, Medicare benefit payments totaled $675 billion, up from $375 billion in 2006.](http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/) A $300 billion increase in just 10 years and that schmuck wants to lower eligibility by 10 years. If this were ever signed into law, I am (plus other American workers) going to be forced to pay into this. That means less money for me to save and invest for retire or an emergency. Less for my daughter. Less for my mortgage. Less for me to continue my education. Less on whatever I choose to do with my money that I spend 40 hours/week in an office for. My time is spent doing something asked of me by a corporation. That corporation pays me for my time. It's a mutual agreement resulting in a trade of money for my services. I do it because I want to do things and provide for my family. I don't do it because someone decided to spend 4 years for a degree in graphic design and can't get a job. I also don't do it for people that have a cash only income (both illegal immigrants and legal citizens do this) and don't declare all of their income making them eligible for Obamacare. And, lastly, I do not do it for people that decide to live off of the system and are physically and mentally fit to work in some capacity. I should not be forced to pay a mandate just because I'm here breathing. Obama - just like all progressives - normalized this \"\"breathing\"\" tax. It isn't right. Of course, Obamacare falls apart if there aren't enough healthy people to subsidize the sick people. That's why the mandate was obviously put in place. But just because the mandate is needed to make it work, doesn't make it right to force on people. My mortgage needs to get paid. If all my neighbors chipped in $75/month, I could make it work. Well, is it right to force my neighbors to pay my mortgage? Nope. I made the decision to buy my house. They did not. Not to mention, with socialized health care, services are rationed and that is just sickening. Big Gov: \"\"Oh, you're 80 years old and you need a knew knee? Well, you did live for 80 years, so we're going to deny that request.\"\" In a system where I pay for my own health care and insurance, I can get a new hip and a new knew if I needed it and it would all be done within a week or 2 most likely. You have 51 week-old Charlie Gard who Britain and the wonderful EU (sarcasm) ordered to die. He did so just last week even though his parents had the money to fly him here and have a doctor perform a potentially life-saving surgery. Yep. When the government owns healthcare, they own your health. That's my other big reason for hating Obamacare. It truly is a bad thing. We have world history that can easily show anyone what it looks like if we keep going down this path. I am done for now. I am not trying to convince you of anything. That usually doesn't happen as people are set in their ways. If anything, this exchange of messages is for the person(s) out there that want to learn what is right and what is wrong. What liberty is and what it isn't. Taxing people as a way to redistribute wealth is wrong. Imposing mandates so people buy a product/service is just straight up wrong. Our income is a representation of our time spent fulfilling the responsibilities of an agreement that we voluntarily made with an employer. Our money is our time. Our time is our liberty. And if we aren't infringing on the rights of others during our time, then the government needs to stay out. Catch you later.\"" }, { "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": "120576", "title": "", "text": "You know what? I'd love it if I could work a part-time job, but make the same salary (scaled down to the number of hours, obviously). I spend entirely too much time away from the things I'd rather be doing (family, hobbies, relaxing) in my 40 hour hell-hole. I'd much rather take a reasonable cut and work less. Basically, I don't need to get rich, but if I can live off of a reduced salary *and* work fewer hours I'd be a very happy man. Now... working part time and not earning enough to survive- that's not acceptable at all. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of part-time jobs are this way." }, { "docid": "366865", "title": "", "text": "Smart parents not wanting to get stuck with a student loan or co-signing on a loan. because rent is so high Are you able to live with your parents? Is there anyway to reduce the cost of rent like renting a room? Can you move somewhere where the rent is cheaper? working 25 hours per week Working 25 hours per week and taking 6 hours is a pretty light schedule. It is not even 40 hours per week. What is stopping you from working 40 hours and paying for school from your salary? In my own life I created a pretty crappy situation for myself when I was a young man. I really wanted to go to a prestigious university, but ended up going to a community college, and then to a university that was lesser known in a less expensive area. I had to work like crazy, upwards of 50 hours per week. I also took a full load in a difficult degree program. You probably don't have to go to the extremes that I went through, but you can work more. Most adults work at their jobs well more than 40 hours per week, then come home and continue to work (on the house, raising kids, trying to start a side business, etc...). So you might as well become an adult now. There are ways to become independent from your parents for FAFSA like have a baby, get married, or join the military. I'd only recommend the last one as you will also receive the GI Bill. Another option is to try and obtain a job that offers financial aid." }, { "docid": "384175", "title": "", "text": "\"Without knowing the details of your financial situation, I can only offer general advice. It might be worth having a financial counselor look at your finances and offer some custom advice. You might be able to find someone that will do this for free by asking at your local church. I would advise you not to try to get another loan, and certainly not to start charging things to a credit card. You are correct when you called it a \"\"nightmare.\"\" You are currently struggling with your finances, and getting further into debt will not help. It would only be a very short-term fix and have long-lasting consequences. What you need to do is look at the income that you have and prioritize your spending. For example, your list of basic needs includes: If you have other things that you are spending money on, such as medical debt or other old debt that you are trying to pay off, those are not as important as funding your basic needs above. If there is anything you can do to reduce the cost of the basic needs, do it. For example, finding a cheaper place to live or a place closer to your job might save you money. Perhaps accepting nutrition assistance from a local food bank or the Salvation Army is an option for you. Now, about your car: Your transportation to your job is very much one of your basic needs, as it will enable you to pay for your other needs. If you can use public transportation until you can get a working car again, or you can find someone that will give you a ride, that will solve this problem. If not, you'll need to get a working car. You definitely don't want to take out another loan for a car, as you are already having trouble paying the first loan. I'm guessing that it will be less expensive to get the engine repaired than it will be to buy a new car at this point. But that is just a guess. You'll need to find out how much it will cost to fix the car, and see if you can swing it by perhaps eliminating expenses that aren't necessary, even for a short time. For example, if you are paying installments on medical debt, you might have to skip a payment to fix your car. It's not ideal, but if you are short on cash, it is a better option than losing your job or taking out even more debt for your car. Alternatively, buying another, functional car, if it costs less than fixing your current car, is an option. If you don't have the money to pay your current car loan payments, you'll lose your current car. Just to be clear, many of these options will mess up your credit score. However, borrowing more, in an attempt to save your credit score, will probably only put off the inevitable, as it will make paying everything off that much harder. If you don't have enough income to pay your debts, you might be better off to just take the credit score ding, get back on your feet, and then work to eliminate the debt once you've got your basic needs covered. Sorry to hear about your situation. Again, this advice is just general, and might not all apply to your financial details. I recommend talking to the pastor of a local church and see if they have someone that can sit down with you and discuss your options.\"" }, { "docid": "168796", "title": "", "text": "From your question and how you have framed it, I get you find Agressive Sales tactics disturb the buying process for you. ;) I understand because I also find the whole process of Research / Negotiating / Buying / Owning / Using is all on one continuum, so anything that ruins the process will likely lose the sale or enjoyment of the item, at the end of the day. [Very long answer .... Sorry :) ] The answer to this is to KNOW what you want before you have to deal with the Sales people. A good Sales person likes a customer who knows what they want. I would suggest that you follow my 'Buying Process' (Much you have already done) : Before you Buy: Identify the item you want and the max/min 'realistic' price you would buy at. [Stick to this price else 'Buyers Remorse' may bite later.] Write the questions you have down on paper before you visit the Dealer. Write the answers you want on the same list, if known. Decide which questions are most important and therefore must get the answer you want. These should be the questions you ask first. Mark these on the list. Re-visit points 1-3 are they complete and to your satisfaction ? Would you buy if all the answers & the price are right ? If NO then re-visit point 1-3 else you are not ready to buy now !!! If YES then Organise your visit to the Dealer. [Book appointment etc if needed.] At Dealer: Meet your Sales person and clearly state what you want (the item) and importantly when you intend to buy, if all your questions are answered to your satisfaction. There is no need to discuss price at this point as the 'haggling' is only possible IF the questions are answered to your satisfaction. Do not give information such as your maximum budget or similar requests, as they give the sales person the upper hand to maximise his/her pricing. If asked state that your budget is conditional on the answers you get. As the questions are answered assess the answer and assign +/- to the question on your list. If any of your most critical / important questions are answered in the negative, they are the reasons you have to call it a day and walk out. You can assess whether they are worth ignoring but you will need to factor this into your price and if you have identified your questions correctly there should be little room for debate. Assuming you have got all your questions answered you should know what you are buying and have assessed what is a reasonable price for it, if you still want it as this point. If you have lost interest, say so and let the Sales person go. Don't waste their time. They may make some sort of offer to you BUT don't forget that if you have doubts now they will not go away easily no matter what the 'great' price is. If you want it then continue. Buying your Item: [None of the following is really usefull if you have told the Sales person your Budget, as they will be aiming for the highest end of your budget. You will often find that the best price is very close to your maximum budget !!! :)] Do not forget your realistic price range, this should limit your buying price no matter what tactics are used by the Sales person. Only you know what you are prepared to pay and if an extra 1% or 50% is considered worth it to you, if you have to have the item :) Regardless, you have to have some idea of your limit and be prepared to stick to it. You must be able to walk away if the price is silly and not worth it. Assuming you have not been smitten by your item and funds are NOT unlimited, ask for the price and assess it against your price range. At this point I can only offer pointers as there are no 'magic' rules to get what you want at the lowest price. The only advice I would offer is that you will be lucky to get something at your 1st offer price unless the seller really needs to sell, because of this your 1st offer should be less than your price range lowest band. You will need to assess how much less but be prepared to get a 'No' response. If you get a 'Yes' and your research is good 'Buy It !!!' If you get too enthusiastic a response, question your research & if not sure bail out [No Sale] :) At this point you are likely to be 'Haggling' so you need to be ready for all the 'Must buy Now' tactics. If you have clearly stated your wants and timescales there is no reason to be pulled in by these tactics and they can be ignored until the price has reached the level you are happy with. If the price is not moving where you want than clearly state you cannot 'buy at that price'. If you get a total stop and no movement than you need to assess your 'need' and if priced too high then you should walk out. Remember if you stated that you had a timescale to buy of 1/2/3 weeks you should act like you have 1/2/3 weeks to keep looking. Any eagerness on your part will tell the Sales person that you have lied !!! :) You can always come back and try again, reminding the Sales person that the 'item' is still there and perhaps it is priced too high to sell and make the same offer. !!! (A bit of cheek sometimes works.) If the price is close and you still want it and the Sales person is not moving you need to try walking out while stating that you would love the 'item' if it was priced better, if no improved offer as you go, try an increased offer but again you need to assess how much and remember you can only go up, or walk out and come back another day. If the price is at a level you are happy with then you should have no reason not to buy (if you have followed this process) but this does not mean that you should be forced into buying now if you do not want to. Regardless of any 'Must buy now' tactics if the price is right and you cannot buy now, tell the Sales person when you CAN buy and see if you can get an agreement with this. It is unfair to expect a price to be held for an indeterminate time, so you do need to state when you could buy if not now when a price has been agreed. This is a point where the deal may break down if the Sales person thinks they have a sale and trys to force the Sale now. Once again you have to assess your 'need' and whether buying now is better than walking out. If the deal breaks down there is nothing stopping you from coming back and offering the same price when you can buy. A final option is to agree if a deposit can be left to reserve the item until you can buy. This gives the Sales person some assurance that you will come back and is sometimes NON-Refundable unless you agree otherwise before you pay, so check this detail first. (This tends to be smaller Dealers but generally in the UK the large companies offer refundable deposits as part of their Customer Service, the advantage of using larger Stores/Dealers etc.) Apologies for the epic reply, hope it helps." }, { "docid": "149820", "title": "", "text": "\"Corporate restructuring makes everything a flux, so you might as well revisit some core fundamental questions. Here's how to do this professionally: Start floating your CV now. Line up interviews in competing companies. Attend to them. Score a job offer, and have it put into writing, with exact salary, which should be at least 10%++ of your current one. Take a clear empty page, and write on top: \"\"Business value provided\"\". Put down your major contributions, and achievements. Wherever possible, put the company's expected dollar value near to it. For bonus points, sum it up on the bottom, and minus your current salary. Difference is \"\"Profit provided directly to the company's bottom line\"\". Float this to your manager's desk. At this position, you have only one fundamental question to your boss: \"\"match or pass?\"\" :) A corporate spin-off is a good time to do this: 1, to ensure, that your position will not be made redundant; 2, if it is, you have a backup plan. If the parent company's \"\"getting rid of you\"\", however, there are even more fundamental questions you might want to ask yourself: is this really a profitable division, or merely a loss leader? Does this company have a future, and the adequate growing options for you, personally? To answer these questions, you must have an opportunity cost estimation; and for that, you must have second (and preferably, third) options -hence, the strategy above. To conclude, the best time to do your job research is every other month; and the best time to ask for a raise is always now :) Good luck!\"" }, { "docid": "492293", "title": "", "text": "&gt; is allowing one person and a computer to do the job of what used to be 5 men keeping wages down even more That doesn't make any sense. It means you can pay the man doing the work twice his normal salary and still be paying him less than 5 people" }, { "docid": "465410", "title": "", "text": "&gt; if you went somewhat into debt, say $30k, for a major with good job prospects and a high salary, it will probably be a good decision. Which is exactly what I did, and it worked out very well for me. There is still the opportunity cost I mentioned though. The average person makes $30K out of high school, so that is more than a million dollars in opportunity costs if you go to school for four years instead of going to work. Far more than that if you can earn more than $30K, which there is a good chance you can if you have the talent to get into college. Additionally, if a career has good job prospects and high salaries, employers aren't really going to be concerned about your education save where the law mandates it (you cannot be a doctor without the education by law, for instance). It is the lack of capable workers that drives the salaries up and it is that same lack of capable workers that force employers to consider just about anyone. There may be an argument to be made that an education can help as a signal in jobs where competition of fierce, but that same competition will drive the market rate of the job way down, which doesn't exactly seem like a win to me. That's awesome that it worked out for you, I'm just not sure it should be considered a safe or even good investment. While the returns can be there in some cases, it seems like the stakes are pretty high." }, { "docid": "536604", "title": "", "text": "\"Dude, you are totally moving the goal posts. First of all, the fact that you had to crawl through my comment history and came up with a completely unrelated response rather than addressing my point is pretty pathetic, and a pretty common behavior who are wrong and don't want to admit it. I don't \"\"hate\"\" California, I think it's overrated. And I think it's overrated because what you get isn't worth what you pay. That isn't being \"\"biased\"\", it's cause and effect. If it didn't cost 3x as much to live in California as anywhere else, I would like it a lot more. And the math doesn't work out. You in your original comment said the typical salary is 170K. Now that you have been proven wrong you are now claiming it's 200K+. That isn't the \"\"math working out\"\", that's distorting reality until it lines up with your preconceived notions. And now you are restricting \"\"nature\"\" to mountains (since apparently anything that isn't red river gorge is \"\"ant hills\"\" and therefore not worth anything). Again moving the goalposts. And even if your idea of \"\"things to do in nature\"\" means \"\"I like backpacking in the mountains exclusively\"\", you would be much better off in places like Utah than California. Repeatedly saying \"\"I've done the math, I've been offered a job\"\" doesn't mean anything when I've already shown you the math doesn't work out, and I too have been offered a 6 figure job in SF. I'm clearly not the one that's biased, you are. Look, if you have built up California into some mythical place so sacred that you are so clearly willing to do mental gymnastics you are demonstrating in order to make reality conform with your personal notions, great. But for everyone else, the \"\"math\"\" (as in actual math, not changing the numbers around until it makes sense), doesnt work out.\"" }, { "docid": "317812", "title": "", "text": "\"Hey, I hope I didnt come off as harsh on you. I'm not sure how much I can help, but Id be glad to give you tips on getting you name in the door with the big companies, and other career-y advice. If you haven't already though, please read this article on [negotiating from the perspective of an engineer](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/). I don't think anyone truly enjoys negotiating, but with experience it becomes much easier and more natural. See yourself as an asset - because you obviously are if they are offering their money to you! And in reading your post - let me say this. Never see your company as your friend. Yeah, you might be friends with your boss and coworkers, you all might be in a softball league and hangout, but when it comes to the hours of 9-5, to someone somewhere in your chain of command you are a line item that costs them X amount of money and makes them X amount. Don't forget that, and don't let yourself have \"\"feelings\"\" towards the company. If the company isn't smart enough to hire a backup, even after you have advised them to do so, that is their doing and any repercussions are for them to take. I'm not saying be unflexible, but if you ever, ***ever***, start to think about making or not making a major decision (such as not leaving a company) that is bad for your bottom line in exchange for helping out the company or due to \"\"feeling\"\" in some way towards the company, stop, forget your feelings, and do what logic alone tells you to do. You and your company are not friends. If the company can find someone cheaper to do your job, they will do so with no feelings towards you. And the being solo part -- yeah, thats not a good way to go early in your career. I've made it my objective to surround myself with people smarter than me who are willing to guide me, even at the cost of current financial gains, simply because as a young professional learning from others is one of the top priorities for me now. Running solo - being shoved to a corner to do your work alone - is a huge no-no IMO.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "344118", "title": "", "text": "\"Baseball cards don't pay dividends. But many profitable companies do just that, and those that don't could, some day. Profits & dividends is where your analogy falls apart. But let's take it further. Consider: If baseball cards could somehow yield a regular stream of income just for owning them, then there might be yet another group of people, call them the Daves. These Daves I know are the kind of people that would like to own baseball cards over the long term just for their income-producing capability. Daves would seek out the cards with the best chance of producing and growing a reliable income stream. They wouldn't necessarily care about being able to flip a card at an inflated price to a Bob, but they might take advantage of inflated prices once in a while. Heck, even some of the Steves would enjoy this income while they waited for the eventual capital gain made by selling to a Bob at a higher price. Plus, the Steves could also sell their cards to Daves, not just Bobs. Daves would be willing to pay more for a card based on its income stream: how reliable it is, how high it is, how fast it grows, and where it is relative to market interest rates. A card with a good income stream might even have more value to a Dave than to a Bob, because a Dave doesn't care as much about the popularity of the player. Addendum regarding your comment: I suppose I'm still struggling with the best way to present my question. I understand that companies differ in this aspect in that they produce value. But if stockholders cannot simply claim a percentage of a company's value equal to their share, then the fact that companies produce value seems irrelevant to the \"\"Bobs\"\". You're right – stockholders can't simply claim their percentage of a company's assets. Rather, shareholders vote in a board of directors. The board of directors can decide whether or not to issue dividends or buy back shares, each of which puts money back in your pocket. A board could even decide to dissolve the company and distribute the net assets (after paying debts and dissolution costs) to the shareholders – but this is seldom done because there's often more profit in remaining a going concern. I think perhaps what you are getting hung up on is the idea that a small shareholder can't command the company to give net assets in exchange for shares. Instead, generally speaking, a company runs somewhat like a democracy – but it's each share that gets a vote, not each shareholder. Since you can't redeem your shares back to the company on demand, there exists a secondary market – the stock market – where somebody else is willing to take over your investment based on what they perceive the value of your shares to be – and that market value is often different from the underlying \"\"book value\"\" per share.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "112374", "title": "", "text": "\"You're circling around the answer... The only real difference between a loddar and a privately-issued promissory note is that the loddar is issued by a recognized third party with better credit/credibility (the whole merchant/priest/farmer cartel-thing). Private entities absolutely can and do issue their own promises to pay, and accept them, and in turn rely on those promises to make other promises. It's what you do when you charge something to a credit-card on the basis of your employer's promise to pay. You charge new tires, the tire store promises to pay its employees based on your CC company's promise to pay the tire-store, which is based on your promise to pay the credit-card company, which is based on your employer's promise to pay you, which is based on your employer's contracts with its customers, and so on... In fact, often as not, the whole chain *never actually gets reconciled with printed cash.* The central bank never has to print or even know about these transactions. It's just checks and electronic transfers: promises all the way down, maybe with occasional cash withdrawals for popcorn at the movies or to tip the stripper or something... That doesn't mean it's not \"\"real money\"\", it absolutely is: those promises are buying groceries and tires and making mortgage-payments and paying dentist bills and getting people to dig up stuff out of mines that will be fashioned into iPads, and all kinds of stuff. Where this hurts most people in the brain is that they kind of accept dollar bills as axiomatically and intrinsically valuable. So trying to explain in reverse how they are the same as promissory notes or credit-certificates is like trying to convince them that a plane ticket is the same as an airplane (which is obviously not true). That's why I started with this imaginary world without money. If you let go of any preconceptions, and stop trying to think through the analogies and don't read it trying to predictively look for the outcome conclusions, if you just read it and follow the story through, it is obvious that the *only* intrinsic difference (in that imaginary world) between apple-certificates, loddars, and privately-issued IOUs is the *credibility of the issuer*. Trying to understand this stuff via analogy will make your head spin: Taking it all the way back to the thread-topic and the question at the top of the page, what makes it so difficult is the tendency and mental impulse to analogize money as a \"\"thing\"\" that \"\"is\"\" somewhere, and therefore has to \"\"go\"\" somewhere. But that's an intrinsically and substantially imperfect analogy, which is what makes it hard to explain to a five-year-old. And you can't make the reality fit that analogy and stay sane. Even if you refuse to accept all this maddening abstraction and insist on only doing transactions with physical cash, or gold pieces, *the value of those markers is still 100% contingent on everyone accepting that everyone else will continue to believe that everyone else will continue to accept that currency...* Money is essentially a promise that other people will keep. Instead of giving you food, your employer gives you a \"\"universal gift certificate\"\" that you can redeem anywhere, and everyone else will accept it, because they can in turn redeem it anywhere else. The only difference between using a bank-draft or printed dollar bill, versus writing a promise to make good yourself, is the credibility of the issuer. That's a really difficult premise for most people to accept, because it's invisible and abstract, and seems to conflict with tangible interactions you've been doing all your life. So we have this sort of tendency to try and force the reality to fit preconceived conceptual analogies, like someone who keeps rejecting explanations of how airplanes can fly because \"\"that still doesn't explain how metal can be lighter than air\"\"... it's demanding that the reality must fit a hypothesis that doesn't apply. Hope that helps.\"" }, { "docid": "113623", "title": "", "text": "Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend)." }, { "docid": "287656", "title": "", "text": "\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \"\"safe\"\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\"" }, { "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": "79275", "title": "", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that." }, { "docid": "262864", "title": "", "text": "&gt; all the ports for slave trade were on the far West horn There was an eastern slave trade as well which was actually much larger than the western slave trade. There were several ports for the slave trade up and down the entire eastern side of Africa. Regardless, a better analogy would have been Madagascar. When Africans first settled there in ~1000AD, they ran into a native population (originally from SE Asia) similar to how the Europeans ran into Native Americans. Now, Madagascar may be doing slightly better than Zimbabwe, but it's still doing pretty poorly." }, { "docid": "4810", "title": "", "text": "\"There is no equation. Only data that would help you come to the decision that's right for you. Assuming the 401(k) is invested in a stock fund of one sort or another, the choice is nearly the same as if you had $5K cash to either invest or pay debt. Since stock returns are not fixed, but are a random distribution that somewhat resembles a bell curve, median about 10%, standard deviation about 14%. It's the age old question of \"\"getting a guaranteed X% (paying the debt) or a shot at 8-10% or so in the market.\"\" This come up frequently in the decision to pre-pay mortgages at 4-5% versus invest. Many people will take the guaranteed 4% return vs the risk that comes with the market. For your decision, the 401(k) loan, note that the loan is due if you separate from the company for whatever reason. This adds an additional layer of risk and another data point to the mix. For your exact numbers, the savings is barely $50. I'd probably not do it. If the cards were 18%, I'd lean toward the loan, but only if I knew I could raise the cash to pay it back to not default.\"" }, { "docid": "318185", "title": "", "text": "You have no guarantees. The stock may last have traded at $100 (so, the market price is $100), but is currently in free-fall and nobody else will be willing to buy it for any more than $80. Or heck, maybe nobody will be willing to buy it at all, at any price. Or maybe trading on this stock will be halted. Remember, the market price is just what the stock last traded at. If you put in a 'market order', you are ordering your broker to sell at the best available current price. Assuming someone's willing to buy your stock, that means you'll sell it. But if it last traded at $100, this doesn't guarantee you'll sell at anything close to that." }, { "docid": "269064", "title": "", "text": "\"That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, \"\"low risk\"\" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how \"\"recession-proof\"\" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS \"\"insures\"\" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:\"" }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "docid": "123549", "title": "", "text": "The question should be - do you need a debit card? Other than American Express I have to tell my other credit card issuers to not make my cards dual debit/credit. Using a debit card card can be summed up easily - It creates a risk of fraud, errors, theft, over draft, and more while providing absolutely no benefit. It was simply a marketing scheme for card companies to reduce risk that has lost favor, although they are still used. That is why banks put it on credit cards by default if they can. (I am talking about logical people who can control not overspending because of debit vs. credit - as it is completely illogical that you would spend more based on what kind of card you have.)" }, { "docid": "307524", "title": "", "text": "Well, to put things simply, the government debt level has to do with the money spent by government vs the revenue the government collects. The only tenuous connection between the stock market price and the capital gains tax collected at the end of the year. Granted there should be an increase in the CGT, it would be on the actual transactions made that incurred in Capital Gains. That is, at best, a drop in the bucket. Which Trump, by the way, wants to reduce. Since over a year, 100% of the shares are not exchanged, this would not be even remotely close to the increase in stock market value. The Government simply us no ownership over the stock market value. The stock market also does not count into GDP, so you couldn’t use that to say your debt to GDP ratio declined. They are just so unrelated that it’s senseless to link them." }, { "docid": "261331", "title": "", "text": "Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research" }, { "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": "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.\"" }, { "docid": "93573", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of ways to get out of debt. First, stop spending on that card. You could apply for a 0% APR credit card and if you qualify with a credit limit equal (or higher) than what you have now, then you could transfer the balance and start on paying that down. You could also work out a payment plan with Chase - they would rather have some of the money vs. none of it. But you need to reach out sooner rather than later to avoid having it sent to collections. Since your cash flow is terrible, you could also pick up a second or third part time job - deliver pizzas, work at the mall, whatever, to help increase your cash flow and use that money to pay down your debts. The Federal Trade Commission has some resources on how to cope with debt." }, { "docid": "378821", "title": "", "text": "Generally, if you are trend trading, and if the market as a hole is going up strongly and an individual stock is falling sharply on the same day, I would tend to stay away from buying that stock at the moment. The market is showing strength whilst at the same time the stock is showing weakness. The general rule of thumb for trend trading is to buy rising stocks in a rising market. Or you could look to short sell falling stocks in a falling market." }, { "docid": "467936", "title": "", "text": "For the case of spinoffs it reflects the market as activities as the specific steps that have to be followed take place. For example the spinoff of Leidos from SAIC in 2013. (I picked this one becasue I knew some of the details) On September 9, 2013, the Board of Directors of SAIC, Inc.(Ticker Symbol (NYSE):SAI) approved the following: The separation of its technical, engineering and enterprise information technology services business through the distribution of shares of SAIC Gemini, Inc. to stockholders. Each stockholder of record of SAIC, Inc. as of September 19, 2013 (Record Date) will receive one (1) share of SAIC Gemini, Inc. common stock for every seven (7) shares of SAIC, Inc. common stock held by such stockholder as of the Record Date. This distribution will be effective after market close on September 27, 2013 (Distribution Date). After the Distribution Date, SAIC Gemini, Inc. will be renamed Science Applications International Corporation (New SAIC). A one (1) for four (4) reverse stock split of the SAIC, Inc. common stock effective as of Distribution Date. After the Distribution Date, SAIC, Inc. will be renamed Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos). Q 11: What are the different trading markets that may occur between Record Date and Distribution Date? A: Beginning two days prior to the Record Date of September 19, 2013 through the Distribution Date on September 27, 2013, there may be three different trading markets available with respect to SAIC, Inc. and the separation. Stock Ticker – SAI (Regular Way Trading with Due Bills): Shares of SAI common stock that trade on the regular-way market will trade with an entitlement to shares of the New SAIC common stock distributed on the Distribution Date. Purchasers in this market are purchasing both the shares of Leidos and New SAIC common stock. Form of Stock Ticker –SAIC (When Issued Trading): Shares of New SAIC common stock may be traded on a “when-issued” basis. These transactions are made conditionally because the security has been authorized, but not yet issued. Purchasers in this market are only purchasing the shares of New SAIC common stock distributed on the Distribution Date. Form of Stock Ticker – LDOS (Ex-Distribution Trading): Shares that trade on the ex-distribution market will trade without an entitlement to shares of New SAIC common stock distributed on the Distribution Date. Purchasers in this market are only purchasing the shares of Leidos common stock. So the stock price for New SAIC starts a few days before the record date of 19 September 2013, while LDOS (new name for the old SAIC) goes back much earlier. But the company didn't split until after the close of business on 27 September 2013. http://investors.saic.com/sites/saic.investorhq.businesswire.com/files/doc_library/file/GeneralStockholder-QuestionsandAnswers.pdf" }, { "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.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "503934", "title": "", "text": "The Bobs tend to show up at the top of bubbles, then disappear soon after. For example, your next door neighbor who talks about Oracle in 1999, even though he doesn't know what Oracle does for a living. I don't think the Bobs' assets represent a large chunk of the market's value. A better analogy would be a spectrum of characters, each with different time horizons. Everyone from the high-frequency trader to the investor who buys and holds until death." } ]

[ { "docid": "496921", "title": "", "text": "\"The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock. Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money. In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies. There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world: Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says \"\"all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles.\"\" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run.\"" }, { "docid": "516078", "title": "", "text": "I work at BATS Chi-X Europe and wanted to provide some clarity/answers to these questions. BATS Chi-X Europe is a Recognised Investment Exchange, so it is indeed a stock exchange. Sometimes the term “equity market” could be used when explaining our business, but essentially we are a stock exchange. As some background, BATS Chi-X Europe was formed by the acquisition of Chi-X Europe by BATS Trading in November 2011. At the time of the acquisition, each company operated as a Multilateral Trading Facility (MTF) for the trading of pan-European equities via a single trading platform. The category of MTF was introduced by MIFID (markets in Financial Instrument Directive) in 2007, which introduced competition in equities trading and allowed European stocks, to be traded on any European platform. Until 2007, many European stocks had to be traded only their local exchanges due to so-called “Concentration Rules”. Following the acquisition, BATS Chi-X Europe became the largest MTF in Europe, offering trading in more than 2,000 securities (2,700 securities by September 2013) across 15 major European markets, on a single trading platform. In May 2013, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full exchange status. In response to question 1: The equities traded on BATS Chi-X Europe are listed on stock exchanges such as the LSE but also listed on the other European Exchanges. The term “third party” equities is not particularly useful as all stock trading in Europe is generally a “second hand” business referred to as “secondary market” trading. At the time of listing a firm issues shares; trading in these shares after the listing exercise is generally what happens in equity markets and these shares can be bought and sold on stock exchanges across Europe. Secondary market trading describes all trading on all exchanges or MTFs that takes place after the listing. In response to question 2: BATS Chi-X Europe trades over 2,700 stocks on its own trading platform. When trading on BATS Chi-X Europe, orders are executed on their own platform and will not end up of the LSE order books or platform. The fact that a stock was first listed on the LSE, does not mean that all trading in this stock happens via the LSE. However settlement process ensures that stocks end up being logged in a single depository. This means that a stock bought on BATS Chi-X Europe can be offset against the same stock sold on the LSE. In response to question 3: As noted above, BATS Chi-X Europe received Recognised Investment Exchange (RIE) status from the UK Financial Conduct Authority in May 2013, meaning that BATS Chi-X Europe has changed from an MTF status to full stock exchange status. As an exchange / RIE, BATS Chi-X Europe is authorised to offer primary and secondary listings alongside its existing business. According to the Federations of European Securities Exchanges (FESE), BATS Chi-X Europe has been the largest equity exchange in Europe by value traded in every month so far in 2013. In August, 24.1% of European equities trading in the 15 markets covered were traded on BATS Chi-X Europe. In July and August, the average notional value traded on BATS Chi-X Europe was around €7.2 billion per day. Hope this information is helpful." }, { "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": "217899", "title": "", "text": "I think that kind of separates Amazon as a product though (at least during its growth, obviously many companies are trying to compete now). Even though it's still retail, I don't need to spend time, gas, etc to go to the store, and the upsell is worth it. I think a better analogy here is Lyft vs public transit. I can take the bus, it gets me home, but $4 gets me a lyft line there and the convenience is worth the price difference." }, { "docid": "37040", "title": "", "text": "\"First of all, not all brokers allow trading during pre-market and post-market. Some brokers only allow trading during the regular hours (9:30am - 4pm ET). Second of all, while you can place orders using limit orders and market orders during regular trading hours, you can only use limit orders during pre-market and post-market. This is because the liquidity is much lower during pre-market and post-market, and using market orders could result in some trades filling at horrible prices. So brokers don't allow using market orders outside of regular trading hours. Third, some brokers require you to specify that you want your order to be executed during pre-market or post-market. For example, my broker allows me to specify either \"\"Day\"\" or \"\"Ext\"\" for my orders. \"\"Day\"\" means I want my order to execute only during regular trading hours, and \"\"Ext\"\" means I want my order to execute at any time - pre-market, regular trading hours, or post-market. Finally, if your broker allows pre/post market trading, and you place a limit order while specifying \"\"Ext\"\", then your trade can happen in real-time during pre-market or post-market. Per your example, if a stock is trading at $5 at 8am, and you put in a limit order (while specifying \"\"Ext\"\") to buy it at $5 at 8am, then your order will execute at that time and you will buy that stock at 8am.\"" }, { "docid": "312801", "title": "", "text": "I definitely want it, all of my cash that i've accumulated goes into my brokerage but I just wanted to check that in can be done. I just wanted to see if anyone knew anyone personally or anything like that because most of the time it's people e-bragging or bullshitting to make them seem like something. I also wanted to see if it is still feasible with all of the algo trading and stuff that has been dominating the market versus an individual trader. Thanks for your reply though, I like the analogy a lot." }, { "docid": "119819", "title": "", "text": "\"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"" }, { "docid": "113623", "title": "", "text": "Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend)." }, { "docid": "53041", "title": "", "text": "\"A \"\"market maker\"\" is someone that is contractually bound, by the exchange, to provide both bid and ask prices for a given volume (e.g. 5000 shares). A single market maker usually covers many stocks, and a single stock is usually covered by many market makers. The NYSE has \"\"specialists\"\" that are market makers that also performed a few other roles in the management of trading for a stock, and usually a single issue on the NYSE is covered by only one market maker. Market makers are often middlemen between brokers (ignoring stuff like dark pools, and the fact that brokers will often trade stocks internally among their own clients before going to the exchange). Historically, the market makers gave up buy/sell discretion in exchange for being the \"\"go-to guys\"\" for anyone wanting to trade in that stock. When you told your broker to buy a stock for you, he didn't hook you up with another retail investor; he went to the market maker. Market makers would also sometimes find investors willing to step in when more liquidity was needed for a security. They were like other floor traders; they hung out on the exchange floors and interacted with traders to buy and sell stocks. Traders came to them when they wanted to buy one of the specialist's issues. There was no public order book; just ticker tape and a quote. It was up to the market maker to maintain that order book. Since they are effectively forbidden from being one-sided traders in a security, their profit comes from the bid-ask spread. Being the counter-party to almost every trade, they'd make profit from always selling above where they were buying. (Except when the price moved quickly -- the downside to this arrangement.) \"\"The spread goes to the market maker\"\" is just stating that the profit implicit in the spread gets consumed by the market maker. With the switch to ECNs, the role of the market maker has changed. For example, ForEx trading firms tend to act as market makers to their customers. On ECNs, the invisible, anonymous guy at the other end of most trades is often a market maker, still performing his traditional role. Yet brokers can interact directly with each other now, rather than relying on the market maker's book. With modern online investing and public order books, retail investors might even be trading directly with each other. Market makers are still out there; in part, they perform a service sold by an Exchange to the companies that choose to be listed on that exchange. That service has changed to helping tamp volatility during normal high-volatility periods (such as at open and close).\"" }, { "docid": "135216", "title": "", "text": "\"The market capitalization of a stock is the number of shares outstanding (of each stock class), times the price of last trade (of each stock class). In a liquid market (where there are lots of buyers and sellers at all price points), this represents the price that is between what people are bidding for the stock and what people are asking for the stock. If you offer any small amount more than the last price, there will be a seller, and if you ask any small amount less than the last price, there will be a buyer, at least for a small amount of stock. Thus, in a liquid market, everyone who owns the stock doesn't want to sell at least some of their stock for a bit less than the last trade price, and everyone who doesn't have the stock doesn't want to buy some of the stock for a bit more than the last trade price. With those assumptions, and a low-friction trading environment, we can say that the last trade value is a good midpoint of what people think one share is worth. If we then multiply it by the number of shares, we get an approximation of what the company is worth. In no way, shape or form does it not mean that there is 32 billion more invested in the company, or even used to purchase stock. There are situations where a 32 billion market cap swing could mean 32 billion more money was invested in the company: the company issues a pile of new shares, and takes in the resulting money. People are completely neutral about this gathering in of cash in exchange for dilluting shares. So the share price remains unchanged, the company gains 32 billion dollars, and there are now more shares outstanding. Now, in some sense, there is zero dollars currently invested in a stock; when you buy a stock, you no longer have the money, and the money goes to the person who no longer has the stock. The issue here is the use of the continuous tense of \"\"invested in\"\"; the investment was made at some point, but the money doesn't really stay in this continuous state of being. Unless you consider the investment liquid, and the option to take money out being implicit, it being a continuous action doesn't make much sense. Sometimes the money is invested in the company, when the company causes stocks to come into being and sells them. The owners of stocks has invested money in stocks in that they spent that money to buy the stocks, but the total sum of money ever spent on stocks for a given company is not really a useful value. The market capitalization is an approximation, which under the efficient market hypothesis (that markets find the correct price for things nearly instantly) is reasonably accurate, of the value the company has collectively to its shareholders. The efficient market hypothesis isn't accurate, but it is an acceptable rule of thumb. Now, this value -- market capitalization -- is arguably not the total value of a company: other stakeholders include bond holders, labour, management, various contract counter-parties, government and customers. Some companies are structured so that almost all value is captured not by the stock owners, but by contract counter-parties (this is sometimes used for hiding assets or debts). But for most large publically traded companies, it (in theory) shouldn't be far off.\"" }, { "docid": "130314", "title": "", "text": "OTA channels. You only lose MNF compared to basic cable. I listen to the radio for baseball games. Which works out pretty well, since I hardly ever actually watched baseball games when I had cable. I'm always surfing reddit or doing something else around the house when they are on. And on the rare occasion that there is a game on that I want to see and it is on cable only, I go to my local sports bar." }, { "docid": "321027", "title": "", "text": "The difference in interest is not a huge factor in your decision. It's about $2 per month. Personally I would go ahead and knock one out since it's one less to worry about. Then I would cancel the account and cut that card up so you are not tempted to use it again. To address the comments... Cutting up the card is NOT the ultimate solution. The solution is to stop borrowing money... Get on a strict budget, live on less than what you bring home, and throw everything you can at this high-interest debt. The destroying of the card is partly symbolic - it's a gesture to indicate that you're not going to use credit cards at all, or at least until they can be used responsibly, not paying a DIME of interest. It's analogous to a recovering alcoholic pouring out bottles of booze. Sure you can easily get more, but it's a commitment to changing your attitude and behavior. Yes leaving the card open will reduce utilization and improve (or not hurt) credit score - but if the goal is to stop borrowing money and pay off the other card, then once that is achieved, your credit score will be significantly improved, and the cancelling of the first card will not matter. The card (really both cards) should never, ever be used again." }, { "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": "484190", "title": "", "text": "\"What most of these answers here seem to be missing is that a stock \"\"price\"\" is not exactly what we typically expect a price to be--for example, when we go in to the supermarket and see that the price of a gallon of milk is $2.00, we know that when we go to the cash register that is exactly how much we will pay. This is not, however, the case for stocks. For stocks, when most people talk about the price or quote, they are really referring to the last price at which that stock traded--which unlike for a gallon of milk at the supermarket, is no guarantee of what the next stock price will be. Relatively speaking, most stocks are extremely liquid, so they will react to any information which the \"\"market\"\" believes has a bearing on the value of their underlying asset almost (if not) immediately. As an extreme example, if allegations of accounting fraud for a particular company whose stock is trading at $40 come out mid-session, there will not be a gradual decline in the price ($40 -> $39.99 -> $39.97, etc.)-- instead, the price will jump from $40 to say, $20. In the time between the the $40 trade and the $20 trade, even though we may say the price of the stock was $40, that quote was actually a terrible estimate of the stock's current (post-fraud announcement) price. Considering that the \"\"price\"\" of a stock typically does not remain constant even in the span of a few seconds to a few minutes, it should not be hard to believe that this price will not remain constant over the 17.5 hour period from the previous day's close to the current day's open. Don't forget that as Americans go to bed, the Asian markets are just opening, and by the time US markets have opened, it is already past 2PM in London. In addition to the information (and therefore new knowledge) gained from these foreign markets' movements, macro factors can also play an important part in a security's price-- perhaps the ECB makes a morning statement that is interpreted as negative news for the markets or a foreign government before the US markets open. Stock prices on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. won't be able to react until 9:30, but the $40 price of the last trade of a broad market ETF at 4PM yesterday probably isn't looking so hot at 6:30 this morning... don't forget either that most individual stocks are correlated with the movement of the broader market, so even news that is not specific to a given security will in all likelihood still have an impact on that security's price. The above are only a few of many examples of things that can impact a stock's valuation between close and open: all sorts of geopolitical events, announcements from large, multi-national companies, macroeconomic stats such as unemployment rates, etc. announced in foreign countries can all play a role in affecting a security's price overnight. As an aside, one of the answers mentioned after hours trading as a reason--in actuality this typically has very little (if any) impact on the next day's prices and is often referred to as \"\"amateur hour\"\", due to the fact that trading during this time typically consists of small-time investors. Prices in AH are very poor predictors of a stock's price at open.\"" }, { "docid": "112374", "title": "", "text": "\"You're circling around the answer... The only real difference between a loddar and a privately-issued promissory note is that the loddar is issued by a recognized third party with better credit/credibility (the whole merchant/priest/farmer cartel-thing). Private entities absolutely can and do issue their own promises to pay, and accept them, and in turn rely on those promises to make other promises. It's what you do when you charge something to a credit-card on the basis of your employer's promise to pay. You charge new tires, the tire store promises to pay its employees based on your CC company's promise to pay the tire-store, which is based on your promise to pay the credit-card company, which is based on your employer's promise to pay you, which is based on your employer's contracts with its customers, and so on... In fact, often as not, the whole chain *never actually gets reconciled with printed cash.* The central bank never has to print or even know about these transactions. It's just checks and electronic transfers: promises all the way down, maybe with occasional cash withdrawals for popcorn at the movies or to tip the stripper or something... That doesn't mean it's not \"\"real money\"\", it absolutely is: those promises are buying groceries and tires and making mortgage-payments and paying dentist bills and getting people to dig up stuff out of mines that will be fashioned into iPads, and all kinds of stuff. Where this hurts most people in the brain is that they kind of accept dollar bills as axiomatically and intrinsically valuable. So trying to explain in reverse how they are the same as promissory notes or credit-certificates is like trying to convince them that a plane ticket is the same as an airplane (which is obviously not true). That's why I started with this imaginary world without money. If you let go of any preconceptions, and stop trying to think through the analogies and don't read it trying to predictively look for the outcome conclusions, if you just read it and follow the story through, it is obvious that the *only* intrinsic difference (in that imaginary world) between apple-certificates, loddars, and privately-issued IOUs is the *credibility of the issuer*. Trying to understand this stuff via analogy will make your head spin: Taking it all the way back to the thread-topic and the question at the top of the page, what makes it so difficult is the tendency and mental impulse to analogize money as a \"\"thing\"\" that \"\"is\"\" somewhere, and therefore has to \"\"go\"\" somewhere. But that's an intrinsically and substantially imperfect analogy, which is what makes it hard to explain to a five-year-old. And you can't make the reality fit that analogy and stay sane. Even if you refuse to accept all this maddening abstraction and insist on only doing transactions with physical cash, or gold pieces, *the value of those markers is still 100% contingent on everyone accepting that everyone else will continue to believe that everyone else will continue to accept that currency...* Money is essentially a promise that other people will keep. Instead of giving you food, your employer gives you a \"\"universal gift certificate\"\" that you can redeem anywhere, and everyone else will accept it, because they can in turn redeem it anywhere else. The only difference between using a bank-draft or printed dollar bill, versus writing a promise to make good yourself, is the credibility of the issuer. That's a really difficult premise for most people to accept, because it's invisible and abstract, and seems to conflict with tangible interactions you've been doing all your life. So we have this sort of tendency to try and force the reality to fit preconceived conceptual analogies, like someone who keeps rejecting explanations of how airplanes can fly because \"\"that still doesn't explain how metal can be lighter than air\"\"... it's demanding that the reality must fit a hypothesis that doesn't apply. Hope that helps.\"" }, { "docid": "326991", "title": "", "text": "\"Interactive Brokers offers global securities trading. Notice that the security types are: cash, stock (STK), futures (FUT), options (OPT), futures options (FOP), warrants (WAR), bonds, contracts for differences (CFD), or Dutch warrants (IOPT) There is a distinction between options (OPT), warrants (WAR), options on futures (FOP) and finally, Dutch Warrants (IOPT). IOPT is intuitively similar to an \"\"index option\"\". (For index option valuation equations, iopt=1 for a call, and iopt= -1 for a put. I don't know if Interactive Brokers uses that convention). What is the difference between a \"\"Dutch Warrant\"\" and an option or warrant? Dutch warrants aren't analogous to Dutch auctions e.g. in the U.S.Treasury bond market. For North America, Interactive Brokers only lists commissions for traditional warrants and options, that is, warrants and options that have a single stock as the underlying security. For Asia and Europe, Interactive Brokers lists both the \"\"regular\"\" options (and warrants) as well as \"\"equity index options\"\", see commission schedule. Dutch warrants are actually more like options than warrants, and that may be why Interactive Brokers refers to them as IOPTS (index options). Here's some background from a research article about Dutch warrants (which was NOT easy to find): In the Netherlands, ING Bank introduced call and put warrants on the FT-SE 100, the CAC 40 and the German DAX indexes. These are some differences between [Dutch] index warrants and exchange traded index options: That last point is the most important, as it makes the pricing and valuation less subject to arbitrage. Last part of the question: Where do you find Structured Products on Interactive Brokers website? Look on the Products page (rather than the Commissions page, which does't mention Structured Products at all). There is a Structured Products tab with details.\"" }, { "docid": "371176", "title": "", "text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion." }, { "docid": "350925", "title": "", "text": "A long straddle using equity would be more akin to buying a triple leveraged ETF and an inverse triple leveraged ETF, only because one side will approach zero while the other can theoretically increase to infinity, in a short time span before time decay hits in. The reason your analogy fails is because the delta is 1.0 on both sides of your trade. At the money options, a necessary requirement for a straddle, have a delta of .5 There is an options strategy that uses in the money calls and puts with a delta closer to 1.0 to create an in the money strangle. I'm not sure if it is more similar to your strategy, an analogous options strategy would be better than yours as it would not share the potential for a margin call." }, { "docid": "89161", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is \"\"I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well\"\", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question \"\"can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card\"\" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "11988", "title": "", "text": "\"Actually, this is a pretty good analogy to certain types of stocks, specifically tech and other \"\"fad\"\" stocks. Around the turn of the century, there were a lot of \"\"Bobs\"\" buying tech stocks (like they would baseball cards), for tech stocks' sakes. That's what drove the internet and tech stock bubbles of high valuations. At other times, the tech stocks are bought and sold mainly by \"\"Steve's\"\" for business reasons such as likely (not merely possible) future appreciation, and command a much lower valuation.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "376987", "title": "", "text": "The minimum amount is set by the merchant services provider based on the kind of business, its location and the history. It mostly has nothing to do with you personally. However, the minimum amount differs based on the kind of credit cards being used. For example, foreign credit cards will require signatures on much lower amounts than domestic. In my local Safeway (NoCal analog of Ralph's) the limit for domestic credit cards is set at $50. If your credit limit is $5000, you might think that its a 1% of your limit. But if your limit is $50000 or $500 - it will still be $50. You cannot deduce anything about a specific person's credit situation based on whether or not they are required to sign the receipt. It has no affect on the decision." }, { "docid": "261331", "title": "", "text": "Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research" }, { "docid": "467936", "title": "", "text": "For the case of spinoffs it reflects the market as activities as the specific steps that have to be followed take place. For example the spinoff of Leidos from SAIC in 2013. (I picked this one becasue I knew some of the details) On September 9, 2013, the Board of Directors of SAIC, Inc.(Ticker Symbol (NYSE):SAI) approved the following: The separation of its technical, engineering and enterprise information technology services business through the distribution of shares of SAIC Gemini, Inc. to stockholders. Each stockholder of record of SAIC, Inc. as of September 19, 2013 (Record Date) will receive one (1) share of SAIC Gemini, Inc. common stock for every seven (7) shares of SAIC, Inc. common stock held by such stockholder as of the Record Date. This distribution will be effective after market close on September 27, 2013 (Distribution Date). After the Distribution Date, SAIC Gemini, Inc. will be renamed Science Applications International Corporation (New SAIC). A one (1) for four (4) reverse stock split of the SAIC, Inc. common stock effective as of Distribution Date. After the Distribution Date, SAIC, Inc. will be renamed Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos). Q 11: What are the different trading markets that may occur between Record Date and Distribution Date? A: Beginning two days prior to the Record Date of September 19, 2013 through the Distribution Date on September 27, 2013, there may be three different trading markets available with respect to SAIC, Inc. and the separation. Stock Ticker – SAI (Regular Way Trading with Due Bills): Shares of SAI common stock that trade on the regular-way market will trade with an entitlement to shares of the New SAIC common stock distributed on the Distribution Date. Purchasers in this market are purchasing both the shares of Leidos and New SAIC common stock. Form of Stock Ticker –SAIC (When Issued Trading): Shares of New SAIC common stock may be traded on a “when-issued” basis. These transactions are made conditionally because the security has been authorized, but not yet issued. Purchasers in this market are only purchasing the shares of New SAIC common stock distributed on the Distribution Date. Form of Stock Ticker – LDOS (Ex-Distribution Trading): Shares that trade on the ex-distribution market will trade without an entitlement to shares of New SAIC common stock distributed on the Distribution Date. Purchasers in this market are only purchasing the shares of Leidos common stock. So the stock price for New SAIC starts a few days before the record date of 19 September 2013, while LDOS (new name for the old SAIC) goes back much earlier. But the company didn't split until after the close of business on 27 September 2013. http://investors.saic.com/sites/saic.investorhq.businesswire.com/files/doc_library/file/GeneralStockholder-QuestionsandAnswers.pdf" }, { "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.\"" }, { "docid": "217899", "title": "", "text": "I think that kind of separates Amazon as a product though (at least during its growth, obviously many companies are trying to compete now). Even though it's still retail, I don't need to spend time, gas, etc to go to the store, and the upsell is worth it. I think a better analogy here is Lyft vs public transit. I can take the bus, it gets me home, but $4 gets me a lyft line there and the convenience is worth the price difference." }, { "docid": "269064", "title": "", "text": "\"That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, \"\"low risk\"\" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how \"\"recession-proof\"\" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS \"\"insures\"\" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:\"" }, { "docid": "287656", "title": "", "text": "\"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a \"\"safe\"\" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities.\"" }, { "docid": "87722", "title": "", "text": "In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds." }, { "docid": "123549", "title": "", "text": "The question should be - do you need a debit card? Other than American Express I have to tell my other credit card issuers to not make my cards dual debit/credit. Using a debit card card can be summed up easily - It creates a risk of fraud, errors, theft, over draft, and more while providing absolutely no benefit. It was simply a marketing scheme for card companies to reduce risk that has lost favor, although they are still used. That is why banks put it on credit cards by default if they can. (I am talking about logical people who can control not overspending because of debit vs. credit - as it is completely illogical that you would spend more based on what kind of card you have.)" }, { "docid": "491517", "title": "", "text": "&gt;slower/duller version of baseball You apparently don't know much about modern cricket. [Cricket is the second most popular sports in the world.](http://www.10topten.com/2012/03/most-popular-sports-in-the-world/) after soccer. &gt;but played over 5 days Very few cricket matches are played in the 5 day format these days. They're called test matches. Most games these days are ODI (One day international games). They usually last about 8 hours. In fact, they even have a newer popular format known as the T20, where the matches are just as short as a typical American MLB game. They last about 4 hours and the pace is more intense than even baseball." }, { "docid": "93573", "title": "", "text": "There are a number of ways to get out of debt. First, stop spending on that card. You could apply for a 0% APR credit card and if you qualify with a credit limit equal (or higher) than what you have now, then you could transfer the balance and start on paying that down. You could also work out a payment plan with Chase - they would rather have some of the money vs. none of it. But you need to reach out sooner rather than later to avoid having it sent to collections. Since your cash flow is terrible, you could also pick up a second or third part time job - deliver pizzas, work at the mall, whatever, to help increase your cash flow and use that money to pay down your debts. The Federal Trade Commission has some resources on how to cope with debt." }, { "docid": "89161", "title": "", "text": "\"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is \"\"I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well\"\", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question \"\"can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card\"\" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)\"" }, { "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": "328073", "title": "", "text": "You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:" }, { "docid": "258227", "title": "", "text": "How long is a piece of string? This will depend on many variables. How many trades will you make in a day? What income would you be expecting to make? What expectancy do you need to achieve? Which markets you will choose to trade? Your first step should be to develop a Trading Plan, then develop your trading rules and your risk management. Then you should back test your strategy and then use a virtual account to practice losing on. Because one thing you will get is many losses. You have to learn to take a loss when the market moves against you. And you need to let your profits run and keep your losses small. A good book to start with is Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom by Van Tharp. It will teach you about Expectancy, Money Management, Risk Management and the Phycology of Trading. Two thing I can recommend are: 1) to look into position and trend trading and other types of short term trading instead of day trading. You would usually place your trades after market close together with your stops and avoid being in front of the screen all day trying to chase the market. You need to take your emotion out of your trading if you want to succeed; 2) don't trade penny stocks, trade commodities, FX or standard stocks, but keep away from penny stocks. Just because you can buy them for a penny does not mean they are cheap." }, { "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": "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": "201799", "title": "", "text": "You start taking on some big risks when go to absolute zero. Unlike your plane analogy, you don't have to fly or not fly - you can opt to take a safer hybrid form of transit. Or to extend the analogy: now you're driving or walking instead of flying, which, per mile traveled, is statistically more risky, even if the plane 'feels' and 'looks' riskier. Consider reading up a bit on the risks of all-cash/bonds (including: shortfall and inflation). Yes, real estate is a hedge, but most of your portfolio is still exposed to inflation. Why not also buy some Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities via a bond fund? Why not put 25% in the stock market to help do well when the markets do well? I think if you do some reading on this you'll find yourself shocked at the risks of being all-cash. FWIW, I'm a relatively conservative voice on investing subreddits - the guy who is usually saying 'hey be sure to keep some bonds!.' So I'm all about a safe/balanced portfolio, but tilt too far in either direction and you take on more risk, not less. You mentioned a pension and real estate. Those are presumably good inflation hedges and relatively stable holdings. The pension especially suggests you can take more stock risk, since you have that stable, bond-like holding. The weirdest thing to me is that you would be 'all in' during the good times. If you're this risk adverse when you see warning signs, I'm curious: were you 100% stocks before? Totally on/off like that seems kinda intense." }, { "docid": "7561", "title": "", "text": "The role of the market maker is to make sure there is a bid and ask on a particular stock. That's it. The market maker ensures that there is a price at which you can buy and a price at which you can sell immediately, but these are not necessarily the best prices. The majority of trades do not involve market makers and occur between two third parties. Whoever said a market order trades with the market maker is thinking of the way stock markets were years ago, not the way they are now. Market orders are supposed to execute immediately and at one time trading with the market makers was the method for executing immediately. If you issue a market order today, it executes with the best available limit order(s) on the other wide of the trade. This may or may not involve a party that identifies as a market maker." } ]

[ { "docid": "89326", "title": "", "text": "Checks are normally numbered sequentially, to keep them unique for record-keeping purposes. The check number takes as many digits as it takes, depending on how long the account has been open and thus how many checks have been written. The most recent check I looked at had a four-digit number, but as has been pointed out businesses may run through thousands per year. I recommend storing this in an unsigned long or long-long, which will probably be comparable to the bank's own limits. I don't know whether there is an explicit maximum value; we would need to find someone who knows the banking standards to answer that." } ]

[ { "docid": "562325", "title": "", "text": "Large and well-known companies are typically a good starting point. That doesn't mean that they are the best or even above average good, but at least they don't cheat you and run with your money. A core point is someone you pay, not the company whose investment he sell you. Although the latter seems cheaper on first glance, it isn't - if you pay him, his interest is to do good work for you; if they pay him, his interest is to sell you the product with the highest payment for him. That does not imply that they are all that way; it's just a risk. There are many good advisers that live from commissions, and still don't recommend you bad investments. Depending on the amounts, you could also read up a bit and open an account with a online investment company. It is discussable, but I think the cost for an adviser only starts to become worth it if you are deep into 5 digits of money." }, { "docid": "245705", "title": "", "text": "Basically speaking, Japanese bank accounts are identified by three numbers: The four digit Bank number. For example 0005 is Mitsubishi Tokyo UFJ Bank The three digit Branch number. For example 001 = Main branch for Mitsubishi. The account number. This is your account number. Your ATM Cash Card and passbook will have these numbers on it in the format XXXX-YYYY-ZZZZZZZZ. When you use an ATM to send money to someone else (like your landlord) you but in these three numbers or use the search feature instead for the first two. This works the same whether you are talking about Mitsubishi, Mizuho, etc. The only thing to note is that while real banks use locations for the branch number (i.e. Ueno branch, Marunouchi branch, etc.), online only banks like Sony Bank (MoneyKit), Rakuten Bank, SBi, etc. use fake locations like colors, etc. This doesn't matter much though. Japan Post bank is technically not a bank and uses a totally different numbering system, though recently they have come up with a strange formula to convert your JP Bank account number into a normal bank account number so you can send payments to it as shown above). All of this is basically for domestic transfers only, though. If you want to transfer money internationally, there are two basic ways: The official way. Go to your bank overseas, and give them the SWIFT code and account code for your bank (likely the branch code will be necessary as well). The problem here is that they will likely charge a high fee for sending the money, and your bank in Japan may also charge a high fee for receiving it! (In addition to any currency conversion fees). A second problem is that only the very major banks even have SWIFT codes. Use a money transfer service that can handle both Japan and your other country. For example, you can use 2 Paypal accounts (Only in the direction of From Japan To overseas, though!), or you can use something like MoneyBookers Either way IBAN is a European standard and isn't used in Japan. If you just want to spend some money in Japan, the most convenient way is probably a foreign visa debit card. Or, you can use a foreign ATM card in Japan to withdraw cash and then deposit it into your Japanese account." }, { "docid": "449082", "title": "", "text": "As Pete B says, something is not adding up. If your story is correct you should still have the legitimate check from your employer. If that is the case, your solution is simple. You If you do not have the good cheque then you are in deep trouble - because then either you didn't have it (in which case you have been lying to us) or you cashed it and spent the money (which means you knew that you had given the bad cheque to the liquor store). Either of those mean you have been deliberately perpetrating a fraud. As for the consequences - be aware that passing a bad cheque is a crime, and if the store reports it as such, it is not unlikely that the police will want to investigate. If they decide you did this deliberately you could be arrested, and you might well end up in jail. We will do you the favour of assuming that you still have the good cheque, and option 1 is possible." }, { "docid": "412226", "title": "", "text": "There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account." }, { "docid": "72261", "title": "", "text": "Can you imagine if Twitter embraced the platform as Trump is trying to use it? They could officially become the digital fireside chat. Instead? Virtue signaling about ideology. How many shareholder revolts have there been at this point? You can't take such hardline stances while your financials are in the toilet." }, { "docid": "254962", "title": "", "text": "We distribute movies, music, and games digitally and yet many publishers still think that books need to be distributed via ink on paper. Books which can be distributed quickly and cheaply in digital format since they consist of relatively little data and can be displayed on cheap low power devices." }, { "docid": "350508", "title": "", "text": "From a Canadian point of view, I think we are generally very similar to how you describe Austria. The only thing I use cash for, is to pay for my coffee at a local micro-roaster who only accepts cash. Cheques, I only use to pay friends. Everything else is debit or credit card. Very few businesses around here will even accept cheques anymore." }, { "docid": "525803", "title": "", "text": "\"Some years ago I was in a similar situation with a CAD cheque. I did not experience any reservation period of months. Within Canada, around a week was usual, and as far as I remember that was the case also for the cheque deposited to the EUR account. You could ask your bank whether a certified cheque (has to be done at the \"\"home\"\" bank of the sender) will have the same reservation period and what the processing time will be anyways. I found a large variation of the (large) fees for cashing foreign cheques. It may be worth asking a few different banks for their conditions (both fees and duration for the whole process).\"" }, { "docid": "475054", "title": "", "text": "It is recommended that you get this using Wire Transfer. The fees is slightly high, it should be in the range of USD 20 - 30. You would get the funds faster, about 3-5 days after the payment is initiated. The Fx conversion would be applied without your knowledge so you would have very little control over it. If you are getting by paper cheque, it would take around 7 - 10 days for the mail to arrive. You would have to deposit this in local Bank, complete a form giving out the details as to why you received the cheque, along with a letter to request the cheque to be cashed ... Generally it takes around 25 days for the funds to get credited. As you would be speaking to someone in Bank, you can try and negotiate a better Fx rate, however for such amounts Bank will not go out of the way, so you may not know what rate gets applied, it would be the standard rate some 20 days later when the actual cheque gets processed. The fees are relatively less in the range of Rs 500 to Rs 1000." }, { "docid": "175196", "title": "", "text": "What? My last room mate was a teller, and I can tell you this isn't the case. If you're given a bad payroll cheque or a bounced cheque the bank will know before its transferred. If payroll bounces find a new job because you're fucked. If you're working for a company that makes over 1 million a year, they can issue paper cheques but choose not too for whatever reason." }, { "docid": "213081", "title": "", "text": "This is so very much a scam. The accepted answer already tells you the basics of it. In addition to the cheque being fake, there is also the possibility that the cheque is a legitimate cheque but has been stolen (or swindled off) from somebody else. In that case, the delay with which the cashing of the cheque will blow up can be considerably longer than the accepted answer states since it depends on the other victim noticing and reporting the fraudulent transfer. The end result is the same: you are not going to be allowed to keep the money. Report this to both your sister's bank as well as her local police. Nothing good can come off this." }, { "docid": "499889", "title": "", "text": "I have no idea what the traditional accounting way of dealing with this might be; but does your accounts package has the concept of subaccounts within a bank account? If so, to me it would make sense that when a cheque is written, you move money in the accounts package from the bank account to a subaccount named 'Cheques Written'; then when it is cashed, move money from that subaccount to the supplier. Then from a reporting perspective, when you want a report that will correspond to your actual bank statement, run a report that includes the subacconut; when you want a report that tells you how much you have available to spend, rune a report that excludes the subaccount." }, { "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": "517934", "title": "", "text": "LC WebPros is a famous name in IT sector, which provides the amazingly great IT solutions service in all over the world. We develop the best multi-functional websites based on the latest technology platforms. We also provide a business card, digital marketing, search engine optimization, Social media marketing and many more services related to IT sector. Our employee synchronize needs with our clients to make a better digital force. We build products that vary based on the needs of the client." }, { "docid": "313338", "title": "", "text": "Hedge funds are typically just funds structured and operated in a way that make them exempt from various securities regulations, most notably the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. This allows them to operate freely of restrictions on traditional fund such as those related to management compensation, public disclosures, investor liquidity, and portfolio concentration and use of leverage. In order to achieve this, hedge funds are typically open only to a limited number of wealthy or sophisticated investors and are restricted in how and to whom they can advertise." }, { "docid": "133943", "title": "", "text": "\"You're missing a very important thing: YEAR END values in (U.S.) $ millions unless otherwise noted So 7098 is not $7,098. That would be a rather silly amount for Coca Cola to earn in a year don't you think? I mean, some companies might happen upon random small income amounts, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume they'll earn (or lose) millions or billions, not thousands. This is a normal thing to do on reports like this; it's wasteful to calculate to so many significant digits, so they divide everything by 1000 or 1000000 and report at that level. You need to look on the report (usually up top left, but it can vary) to see what factor they're dividing by. Coca Cola's earnings per share are $1.60 for FY 2014, which is 7,098/4450 (use the whole year numbers, not the quarter 4 numbers; and here they're both in millions, so they divide out evenly). You also need to understand that \"\"Dividend on preferred stock\"\" is not the regular dividend; I don't see it explicitly called out on the page you reference. They may not have preferred stock and/or may not pay dividends on it in excess of common stock (or at all).\"" }, { "docid": "14162", "title": "", "text": "\"In a way I would almost welcome it becuase ibeleive the outrage from so many millions might actually generate the groundswell public reaction we need to drastically limit software patents. It's outrageous. U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a \"\"system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data\"\" (in its complaint, Apple provides examples such as the recognition of \"\"phone numbers, post-office addresses and dates\"\" and the ability to perform \"\"related actions with that data\"\"; one example is that \"\"the system may receive data that includes a phone number, highlight it for a user, and then, in response to a user's interaction with the highlighted text, offer the user the choice of making a phone call to the number\"\") every fing computer has done that for ever. U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263 on a \"\"real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data\"\" (while this sounds like a pure hardware patent, there are various references in it to logical connections, drivers, programs; in its complaint, Apple said that this patent \"\"relates generally to providing programming abstraction layers for real-time processing applications\"\") so vague as to be anything apple wants yet so low level that obviously premempted by every prior serial data receiver which is every analog and digital radio receiver EVER.\"" }, { "docid": "523540", "title": "", "text": "Simply put, the interest you're paying on your loans is eating into any gains you have in the stock market. So, figure out how much you're paying in interest and consider the feasibility of paying off some of the loan. Also figure in if you would be selling the stock at a profit or a loss. Generally speaking, a home loan is typically long-term, with a high principal. I believe the consensus is that it is typically not worth paying down extra on it. A car loan, though, is much shorter term, with a lower principal. It may be worth it to pay that down. I would certainly consider paying down the loan with 10% interest, even without running any numbers. What about doing this without selling stock? The reason I suggest that is that you should not sell the stock unless you truly need the money or for some material reason(s) related to the company, the market, etc. (Of course, one other reason would be to cut losses.) Unless I was looking to sell some stock anyway, I would try other ways to come up with the money to pay down the highest interest loan, at least. If you are thinking of selling stock to pay down debt, definitely run the numbers." }, { "docid": "457529", "title": "", "text": "I found a good description of these on the Laurentian Bank website. Very similar to Abraham's answer, but the details are a little different (perhaps because it's Canadian). Certified cheque: A cheque which has been certified by the bank that the funds to be drawn are available and locked in for the sole beneficiary. This type of payment is guaranteed in case of theft, loss or destruction. Certified cheques can be entirely replaced after investigation (may be subject to a fee). Official cheque: As for the certified cheque, the official cheque is guaranteed by the bank against theft, loss or destruction. This type of cheque is different because it will be automatically and fully reimbursed within a 30 to 90-day period. If the amount is over $1,000, fees will be higher than those of the certified cheque. Money Order: The money order is also a bank-guaranteed payment in case of theft, loss or destruction. As with the official cheque, it will be replaced or totally refunded within a 30 to 90-day period. Its difference resides in the fact that the maximum amount is $1,000 and it can be issued in US dollars. Bank draft: A bank draft is the ideal guaranteed payment vehicle for all your foreign currency transactions. It’s guaranteed against theft, loss or destruction and will be replaced or totally reimbursed within a period that varies according to the currency. If you are an immigrant or an emigrant or if you make purchases outside of the country, you could require this payment vehicle." } ]

[ { "docid": "43961", "title": "", "text": "\"Given that such activities are criminal and the people committing them have to hide them from the law, it's very unlikely that an investor could detect them, let alone one from a different country. The only things that can realistically help is to keep in mind the adage \"\"If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is\"\", and to stick to relatively large companies, since they have more auditing requirements and fraud is much harder to hide at scale (but not impossible, see Enron). Edit: and, of course, diversify. This kind of thing is rare, and not systematic, so diversification is a very good protection.\"" } ]

[ { "docid": "232864", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to consult a lawyer in your area. Generally speaking though, if you breach the T&C, they don't have to follow them either, which means that whatever they were responsible for in those terms and conditions, they're no longer responsible. So if you get hacked, and they can prove you breached T&C by sharing your credentials, they are absolutely off the hook for your financial losses. So if they detect you're in breach, they may record it and not pursue any other action unless/until you have an issue, in which case they say, \"\"they're in breach, see here, here and here.\"\" Or there may be regulations that require they notify you of their detection of the breach. If this sort of regulation exists, I suspect that the notification would also include a termination of all accounts as well. I can also picture situation where a company might have such a policy built into the T&C so that they can steer as clear as possible from any situations involving liability and cyber-crime in the same sentence. My suggestion would be to take the terms and conditions for your banks to some kind of legal clinic and get them to explain the parts that you do not understand.\"" }, { "docid": "315209", "title": "", "text": "&gt;Are you saying they did commit fraud but it's hard too pin on any one person? You say there is little evidence there was fraud but that it's too hard to prove there was fraud. So what did they do if it wasn't fraud? I am saying both. I am saying that as a general matter criminal fraud is difficult to prove and expensive to litigate. Fraud requires intent. You have to know or reasonably know that what you are doing is fraudulent and you do it anyway. Proving that mens rea is extremely difficult in this situation. Risky does not mean fraudulent. The entire market was bundling mortgage backed securities. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government backed entities) were the largest buyers of MBS. The point is that if the banks honestly believed that they MBS were secure and the regulators at the time did not see a problem with them - then how can you prove criminal fraud? We are only displaying hindsight bias because the subprime market did indeed implode and it did affect the wider mortgage market and the economy. But it wasn't known that would happen at the time. No financial models projected that everything would fail. You can blame lack of foresight or whatever, but risky losses is not criminal. Corporations are allowed the business judgment rule which is arguably the strongest presumption in all of law. There were bad models, but they weren't fraudulent. Now there could have been fraud in certain circumstances - but in no way was it systematic. It was bad modeling and bad economics. Again, [Bernanke has multiple quotes](http://www.businessinsider.com/bernanke-quotes-2010-12?op=1) saying there was no problem. How can the bank's actions be fraudulent when the top regulator is saying nothing is wrong and the market is working as intended?" }, { "docid": "85252", "title": "", "text": "\"In this answer, I won't elaborate on the possibilities of fraud (or pure human error), because something can always go wrong. I will, however, explain why I think you should always keep receipts. When the (monthly or so) time comes to pay your credit card bill, your credit card company sends you a list of transactions. That list has two primary purposes, both of which I would consider equally important: While for the former item, a receipt is not necessary (though it certainly does not hurt showing the receipt along with the bill to provide further proof that the payment was indeed connected to that bill), the latter point does require you to store the receipts so you can check, item-by-item, whether each of the sums is correct (and matched with a receipt at all). So, unless you can actually memorize all the credit card transactions you did throughout the past one or two months, the receipts are the most convenient way of keeping that information until the bill arrives. Yes, your credit card company probably has some safeguards in place to reveal fraud, which might kick in in time (the criteria are mostly heuristical, it seems, with credit cards or legitimate transactions here getting blocked every now and then simply because some travelling of the actual owner was misinterpreted as theft). However, it is your money, it is your responsibility to discover any issues with the bill, just as you would check the monthly transaction list from your bank account line by line. Ultimately, that is why you sign the vendor copy of the receipt when buying something offline; if you discover an issue in your list of transactions, you have to notify your credit card company that you dispute one of the charges, and then the charging vendor has to show that they have your signature for the respective transaction. So, to summarize: Do keep your receipts, use them to check the list of transactions before paying your credit card bill. EDIT: The receipt often cannot be replaced with the bill from the vendor. The bill is useful for seeing how the sum charged by the respective vendor was created, but in turn, such bills often do not contain any payment information, or (when payment was concluded before the bill was printed, as sometimes happens in pre-paid scenarios such as hotel booking) nondescript remarks such as \"\"- PAYMENT RECEIVED -\"\", without any further indication of which one of your credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts, stored value cards, or cash was used.\"" }, { "docid": "126144", "title": "", "text": "First and foremost, I would warn about having to shell out your own money for start-up, inventory, or other sunk costs. If I have to significant amounts of goods and stockpile them, that would be a warning. Some goods-based MLM have significant start-up costs. Along with this - how realistic are your time expectations. Is this to be a part-time occasional endeavor - or your full-time occupation? Do you know enough people that you believe you can recruit, as it is the pyramid that makes you the money, not the goods themselves. Secondly, market research. Companies that I would consider real franchise-like companies generally either have, or demand you do, significant market research in an area before you start. They don't want the good name of their company tarnished by having a venue close down. MLM generally don't care as much (generalization). Similarly, are there others in the same neighborhood/town already in the scheme? If so, and depending on the size of your community, many of your potential target recruits may already either be in the scheme, or already scared/annoyed. Third, and last for my list are any kind of pressure tactics. Again - franchisee companies and their ilk generally want a long-term relationship with the right people - not just more and more people as part of the pyramid. MLM and the like tend to want expand at all costs." }, { "docid": "319051", "title": "", "text": "So ensuring retiree health benefits by investing in them is fraud? How is not passing a massive healthcare pension on to future generations to pay fraud? If the benefits aren't affordable maybe they shouldn't exist? My employer doesn't give me benefits they can't afford!" }, { "docid": "185673", "title": "", "text": "Does your town not have ATMs at alternative locations? Or grocery stores or corner stores with debit card with cash back options? The Bank of Gamestop method seems like a bad idea. Gamestop might easily shut you off from doing preorders, and should, if you do this more than a few times. And you'd certainly hit their fraud detection algorithms (even though you're not really defrauding them - you're actually helping them out by giving them interest-free loans); it looks like you're a serial returner. If you find yourself in need of cash at times when grocery stores aren't available, well, talk to your wife perhaps, or find a location - not a mattress - to store a small amount of emergency cash." }, { "docid": "70389", "title": "", "text": "Is it safe to invest in a portfolio of dividend stocks yielding 7-9% with the money borrowed at 3-4% from one of these brokerages? Yes and no. It depends on your risk profile! Any investment has its risks of losing your capital, but not investing is a guaranteed risk, as you will be guaranteed to fall behind the rate of inflation. Regarding investing on margin, this can increase your gains but can also increase your loses. Regarding the stock market - when investing in stocks you should not only look at the dividend rate but also the capital gain or loss potential. Remember in regards to investing on margin, if the share price drop too much you can get a margin call no matter how much dividend you are getting. It is no use gaining 9% in dividend yield per year if you are losing 15% or more in capital each year. Also, what is the risk of the dividend rate being cut back or dividends not being paid at all in the future? These are some of the risks you should consider before investing and derive a risk management plan as part of your investment plan before you invest. No investment is totally safe or risk free, but it is less risky than not investing at all, as long as you understand the risks involved and have a risk management plan in place as part of your overall investment plan." }, { "docid": "354638", "title": "", "text": "\"This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be \"\"worth\"\" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that \"\"something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it.\"\" That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some \"\"inherent value\"\" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them \"\"worth something\"\" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not.\"" }, { "docid": "455261", "title": "", "text": "You will want to focus on how much is needed for retirement, and what types of investments within the current 401K offerings will get you there. Also will need to discuss non-401K investments such as an IRA, college savings, savings for a house, and an emergency fund. The 401K should be a part of your overall financial picture, how much you invest in the 401K depends on the options you have (Roth 401K available), how much matching (some a little or a lot), and your family plans. You have a few choices: Your company through the 401K provider may provide this service. They may have limited knowledge in what non-401K funds you should invest in, but should be able to discuss types of investment. Fee only planner. They will be able to discus types of investments, and give you some suggestions. Because they don't work on a commission they will not make the investment for you. You need to be able to make the actual selection of investments, so make sure you get criteria to focus on as part of the package. Commission based planner. Will make money off your investment choices. May steer you towards investments that their company offers or ones that offer them the best commissions in that investment type. If the 401K doesn't use funds that the planner can research you will need to provide a copy of the prospectus provided by the 401K. My suggestion is the fee only planner. They balance the limited focus of the 401K company without limiting themselves to the funds their company sells. Before sitting down with the planner get in writing how they fee structure works. A flat fee or hourly fee planner will be expecting you to do all the investment work. This is what you want. Let the fee only planner help you define your plan. But also reanalyze the plan every few years as your needs change." }, { "docid": "81686", "title": "", "text": "&gt;You can't let businessmen engage in fraud and sell you a phony/defective product and argue that we should leave it up to the free market to eventually detect and punish him. A well functioning legal system is consistent with capitalism. The problem is when you invoke prior restraint." }, { "docid": "222485", "title": "", "text": "You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters." }, { "docid": "272840", "title": "", "text": "Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)" }, { "docid": "450779", "title": "", "text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work." }, { "docid": "458345", "title": "", "text": "Great answers. Here's my two cents: First, don't forget to look at the overall picture, not just the dividend. Study the company's income statement, balance sheet and cash flow statement for the last few years. Make sure they have good earnings potential, and are not carrying too much debt. I know it's dull, but it's better to miss an opportunity than to buy a turkey and watch the dividends and the share price tank. I went through this with BAC (Bank of America) a couple of years ago. They had a 38-year history of rising dividends when I bought them, and the yield was about 8%. Then the banking crisis happened and the dividend went from $2.56/share to $0.04, and the price fell from $40 to $5. (I stuck with it, continuing to buy at lower and lower prices, and eventually sold them all at $12 and managed to break even, but it was not a pleasant experience) Do your homework. :) Still, one of the most reliable ways to judge a company's dividend-paying ability is to look at its dividend history. Once a company has started paying a dividend there is a strong expectation from shareholders that these payments will continue, and the company's management will try very hard to maintain them. (Though sometimes this doesn't work out, e.g. BAC) You should see an uninterrupted stream of non-decreasing payments over a period of at least 5 years (this timeframe is just a rule of thumb). Well-established, profitable companies also tend to increase their dividends over time, which has the added benefit of pushing up their share price. So you're getting increasing dividends and capital gains. Next, look at the company's payout ratio over time, and the actual cost of the dividend. Can the projected earnings cover the dividend cost without going above the payout ratio? If not, then the dividend is likely to get reduced. In the case of CIM, the dividend history is short and erratic. The earnings are also all over the place, so it's hard to predict what will happen next year. The company is up to its eyeballs debt (current ratio is .2), and its earnings have dropped by 20% in the last quarter. They have lost money in two of the last three years, even though earning have jumped dramatically. This is a very young company, and in my opinion it is too early for them to be paying dividends. A very speculative stock, and you are more likely to make money from capital gains than dividends. AAE is a different story. They are profitable, and have a long dividend history, although the dividend was cut in half recently. This may be a good to buy them hoping the dividend comes back once the economy recovers. However, they are trading at over 40 times earnings, which seems expensive, considering their low profit margins. Before investing your money, invest in your education. :) Get some books on interpretation of financial staments, and learn how to read the numbers. It's sort of like looking at the codes in The Matrix, and seeing the blonde in the red dress (or whatever it was). Good luck!" }, { "docid": "190011", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;so I would like to ask you which, at this project, poor management skill of Oracle staffs or plan of Oregon are worse to be accused. **I believe there is an increased burden on the employer (Oregon) to effectively manage the scope of the work required for the project that the contractor (Oracle) is working on**. Otherwise, the contractor has plausible deniability for being able to provide deliver a quality working solution. &gt;Or do you think that plan was made mainly by Oracle? I think the plan was **mostly made by Oracle with the requirements given by Oregon**, and that's where things seem messy. My gut tells me though that when an employer hires a contractor for the creation of a fully integrated enterprise system, that the employer essentially signs their financial life away to the project in a way that absolves the contractor of indirect or direct \"\"damages\"\" that come from the result of unforeseen implementation requirements or issues. Oracle has been around long enough to know how to legally cover their asses. If there is anything that Oregon may have traction on, it would be a few of their fraud claims, given that Oracle has made [two settlements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_corporation#Justice_Department_lawsuit) with federal agencies of ~$100 &amp; ~$200 million since 2011 which were from allegations of fraud or false claims. Such claims by Oregon may be supported by the fact that they allegedly have a former Oracle employee who can substantiate the poor quality of the product they were giving to Oregon, but that blame might go back to Oregon's specifications which I have no insight into. As someone who has witnessed a couple of employer and contractor relationships between public &amp; private entities, my hope out of all of this is that: * Sales people for contractors think twice before over-promising technology solutions that their company can't fully deliver on given resource constraints or lack of employer specifications. * Employers \"\"hiring\"\" such entities manage them, expectations, plus the overall project effectively while accepting personal accountability &amp; responsibility. I think the only people who have a clear picture of what was going on were anyone from either party who were on the front lines of managing the project, developing the systems, or running them.\"" }, { "docid": "317399", "title": "", "text": "The major drawback to borrowing to invest (i.e. using leverage) is that your return on investment must be high enough to overcome the cost of finance. The average return on the S&P 500 is about 9.8% (from CNBC) a typical unsecured personal loan will have an interest rate of around 18-36% APR (from NerdWallet). This means that on average you will be paying more interest than you are receiving in returns so are losing money on the margin investment. Sometimes the S&P falls and over those periods you would be paying out interest having lost money so will have a negative return! You may have better credit and so be able to get a lower rate but I don't know your loan terms currently. Secured loans, such as remortgaging your house, will have lower costs but come with more life changing risks. The above assumes that you are getting financing by directly borrowing money, however, it is also possible to trade on margin. This is where you post a proportion of the value that you wish to trade with as collateral against a loan to buy the security. This form of finance is normally used by day traders and other short term holders of stocks. Although the financing costs here are low (I am not charged an interest rate on intraday margin trading) there are very high costs if you exceed the term of the loan. An example is that I am charged a fee if I hold a position overnight and my profits and losses are crystallised at that time. If I am in a losing position at that time the crystallisation process and fee can result in not having enough margin to recover the position and the loss of a potentially profit making position. Additionally if the amount of collateral cash (margin) posted is insufficient to cover the expected losses as calculated by your broker they will initiate a margin call asking for more collateral money. If you do not (or cannot) post this extra margin your losing position will be cashed out and you will take as a loss the total loss at that time. Since the market can change very rapidly, such as in a flash crash, this can result in your losing more money than you had in the first place. As this is essentially a loan you can be bankrupted by this. Overall using leverage to invest magnifies your potential profits but it also magnifies your potential losses. In many cases this magnification could be sufficient to lose you more money than you had originally invested. In addition to magnification you need to consider the cost of finance and that your return over the course of the loan needs to be higher than your cost of finance as well as inflation and other opportunity costs of capital. The S&P 500 is a relatively low volatility market in general so is unlikely to return losses in any given period that will mean that leverage of 1.25 times will take you into losses beyond your own capital investment but it is not impossible. The low level of risk automatically means that your returns are lower and so your cost of capital is likely to be a large proportion of your returns and your returns may not completely cover the cost of capital even when you are making money. The key thing if you are going to trade or invest on leverage is to understand the terms and costs of your leverage and discount them from any returns that you receive before declaring to yourself that you are profitable. It is even more important than usual to know how your positions are doing and whether you are covering your cost of capital when using leverage. It is also very important to know the terms of your leverage in detail, especially what will happen when and if your credit runs out for whatever reason be it the end of the financing period (the length of the loan) or your leverage ratio gets too high. You should also be aware of the costs of closing out the loan early should you need to do so and how to factor that into your investing decisions." }, { "docid": "428290", "title": "", "text": "\"When processing credit/debit cards there is a choice made by the company on how they want to go about doing it. The options are Authorization/Capture and Sale. For online transactions that require the delivery of goods, companies are supposed to start by initially Authorizing the transaction. This signals your bank to mark the funds but it does not actually transfer them. Once the company is actually shipping the goods, they will send a Capture command that tells the bank to go ahead and transfer the funds. There can be a time delay between the two actions. 3 days is fairly common, but longer can certainly be seen. It normally takes a week for a gas station local to me to clear their transactions. The second one, a Sale is normally used for online transactions in which a service is immediately delivered or a Point of Sale transaction (buying something in person at a store). This action wraps up both an Authorization and Capture into a single step. Now, not all systems have the same requirements. It is actually fairly common for people who play online games to \"\"accidentally\"\" authorize funds to be transferred from their bank. Processing those refunds can be fairly expensive. However, if the company simply performs an Authorization and never issues a capture then it's as if the transaction never occurred and the costs involved to the company are much smaller (close to zero) I'd suspect they have a high degree of parents claiming their kids were never authorized to perform transactions or that fraud was involved. If this is the case then it would be in the company's interest to authorize the transaction, apply the credits to your account then wait a few days before actually capturing the funds from the bank. Depending upon the amount of time for the wait your bank might have silently rolled back the authorization. When it came time for the company to capture, then they'd just reissue it as a sale. I hope that makes sense. The point is, this is actually fairly common. Not just for games but for a whole host of areas in which fraud might exist (like getting gas).\"" }, { "docid": "303619", "title": "", "text": "That's not how a ponzi scheme works. You've just described a totally benign transaction involving shares of a sham company. Plenty of people traded Enron shares before it collapsed, that doesn't mean they were complicit or involved in a Ponzi scheme or fraud. Here is the wikipedia page for Ponzi Scheme A ponzi scheme is when I give funds to Fund Manager A because he has a good history of strong returns. Fund Manager A does something with the money I give him, but his financial statements don't represent his true activity or returns. He maintains his strong returns and Investor B shows up to invest also. At some point I want my money back for whatever reason. Since the returns have all been a sham, I'm paid out with the funds that Investor B sent in based on totally fabricated returns." }, { "docid": "551867", "title": "", "text": "This is why I didn't bother to read the article. My neighbor is a robbery detective and he says that they are almost all for drug habits. To get drugs they can either steal from a dealer or get cash from a bank then buy drugs. The dealers are armed, the banks aren't. That's the thought process. He says it is sad how easy they are to catch. Review the bank footage, get their plates then drive to their house and arrest them." } ]

[ { "docid": "450577", "title": "", "text": "Most of the information we get about how a company is running its business, in any market, comes from the company. If the information is related to financial statements, it is checked by an external audit, and then provided to the public through official channels. All of these controls are meant to make it very unlikely for a firm to commit fraud or to cook its books. In that sense the controls are successful, very few firms provide fraudulent information to the public compared with the thousands of companies that list in stock markets around the world. Now, there is still a handful of firms that have committed fraud, and it is probable that a few firms are committing fraud right now. But, these companies go to great lengths to keep information about their fraud hidden from both the public and the authorities. All of these factors contribute to such frauds being black swan events to the outside observer. A black swan event is an event that is highly improbable, impossible to foresee with the information available before the event (it can only be analyzed in retrospect), and it has very large impact. The classification of an event as a black swan depends on your perspective. E.g. the Enron collapse was not as unexpected to the Enron executives as it was to its investors. You cannot foresee black swan events, but there are a few strategies that allow you to insure yourself against them. One such strategy is buying out of the money puts in the stocks where you have an investment, the idea being that in the event of a crash - due to fraud or whatever other reason - the profits in your puts would offset the loses on the stock. This strategy however suffers from time and loses a little money every day that the black swan doesn't show up, thanks to theta decay. So while it is not possible to detect fraud before investing, or at least not feasible with the resources and information available to the average investor, it is possible to obtain some degree of protection against it, at a cost. Whether that cost is too high or not, is the million dollar question." } ]

[ { "docid": "261345", "title": "", "text": "If it's real, it's illegal. She needs someone to be a middle man who transfers money and doesn't ask questions. The list of possible reasons should be plenty obvious and range anywhere from fraud to terrorism. There are thousands of ways to get already transferred money back from your account. If the source of the money is some kind of fraud that's only detected 2 years later, someone will ask you for the money back in 2 years. If real people who operate within legal and moral boundaries want to pay someone, they do not ask someone on Facebook to do it for them." }, { "docid": "185020", "title": "", "text": "\"Dividends are paid based on who owns the security on a designated day. If a particular security pays once per year, you hold 364 days and sell on the day before the \"\"critical\"\" day, you get no dividend. This is not special to 401(k) or to DRIP. It's just how the system works. The \"\"critical\"\" day is the day before the posted ex-dividend date for the security. If you own at the end of that day, you get the dividend. If you sell on that day or before, you do not. Your company changing providers is not in itself relevant. The important factor is whether you can still hold your same investments in the new plan. If not, you will not get the dividend on anything that you currently hold but \"\"sell\"\" due to the change in providers. If you can, then you potentially get the dividend so long as there's no glitch in the transition. Incidentally, it works the other way too. You might end up getting a dividend through the new plan for something that you did not hold the full year.\"" }, { "docid": "473936", "title": "", "text": "Ditto Bill and I upvoted his answer. But let me add a bit. If everyone knew exactly what the risk was for every investment, then prices would be bid up or down until every stock (or bond or derivative or whatever) was valued at exactly risk times potential profit. (Or more precisely, integral of risk times potential profit.) If company A was 100% guaranteed to make $1 million profit this year, while company B had 50% change to make a $2 million profit and 50% to make $0, and every investor in the world knew that, then I'd expect the total price of all shares of the two stocks to stabilize at the same value. The catch to that, though, is that no one really knows the risk. The risk isn't like, we're going to roll a die and if it comes up even the company makes $1 million and if it comes up odd the company makes $0, so we could calculate the exact probability. The risk comes from lack of information. Will consumers want to buy this new product? How many? What are they willing to pay? How capable is the new CEO? Etc. It's very hard to calculate probabilities on these things. How can you precisely calculate the probability that unforeseen events will occur? So in real life prices are muddled. The risk/reward ratio should be roughly sort of approximately linear, but that's about the most one can say." }, { "docid": "308964", "title": "", "text": "\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"" }, { "docid": "232864", "title": "", "text": "\"You need to consult a lawyer in your area. Generally speaking though, if you breach the T&C, they don't have to follow them either, which means that whatever they were responsible for in those terms and conditions, they're no longer responsible. So if you get hacked, and they can prove you breached T&C by sharing your credentials, they are absolutely off the hook for your financial losses. So if they detect you're in breach, they may record it and not pursue any other action unless/until you have an issue, in which case they say, \"\"they're in breach, see here, here and here.\"\" Or there may be regulations that require they notify you of their detection of the breach. If this sort of regulation exists, I suspect that the notification would also include a termination of all accounts as well. I can also picture situation where a company might have such a policy built into the T&C so that they can steer as clear as possible from any situations involving liability and cyber-crime in the same sentence. My suggestion would be to take the terms and conditions for your banks to some kind of legal clinic and get them to explain the parts that you do not understand.\"" }, { "docid": "92516", "title": "", "text": "First, you need to understand that not every investor's goals are the same. Some investors are investing for income. They want to invest in a profitable company and use the profit from the company as income. If that investor invests only in stocks that do not pay a dividend, the only way he can realize income is to sell his investment. But he can invest in companies that pay a regular dividend and use that income while keeping his investment intact. Imagine this: Let's say I own a profitable company, and I offer to sell you part ownership in that company. However, I tell you this upfront: no matter how much profit our company makes, you will never get a penny from me. You will be getting a stock certificate - a piece of paper - and that's it. You can watch the company grow, and you can tell yourself you own it, but the only way you will personally benefit from your investment would be to sell your piece to someone else, who would also never see a penny in profit. Does that sound like a good investment? The fact of the matter is, stocks in companies that do not distribute dividends do have value, but this value is largely based on the potential of profits/dividends at some point in the future. If a company vows never ever to pay dividends, why would anyone invest? An investment would be more of a donation (like Kickstarter) at that point. A company that pays dividends is possibly past their growth stage. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have stopped growing altogether, but remember that an expansion project for any company does not automatically yield a good result. If a company does not have a good opportunity currently for a growth project, I as an investor would rather get a dividend than have the company blow all the profit on a ill-fated gamble." }, { "docid": "569224", "title": "", "text": "What most respondents are forgetting, is when a company allows its employees to purchase its shares at a discount with their salary, the employee is usually required to hold the stock for a number of years before they can sell them. The reason the company is allowing or promoting its employees to purchase its shares at a discount is to give the employees a sense of ownership of the company. Being a part owner in the company, the employee will want the company to succeed and will tend to be more productive. If employees were allowed to purchase the shares at a discount and sell them straight away, it would defeat this purpose. Your best option to decide whether or not to buy the shares is to work out if the investment is a good one as per any other investment you would undertake, i.e. determine how the company is currently performing and what its future prospects are likely to be. Regarding what percentage of pay to purchase the shares with, if you do decide to buy them, you need to work that out based on your current and future budgetary needs and your savings plan for the future." }, { "docid": "423978", "title": "", "text": "&gt; There are plenty of people that consistently beat the market. If the market were truly efficient, then everyone should just passively invest, which would make the market inefficient, leading to active investment. Passive investing a.) Doesn't mark the market *less* efficient, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. b.) There is not a big group of people who consistently beat the markets. There's a tiny, *tiny* sliver of a fraction of a portion of a group of people that beat the market over any ten year period, which is *consistent* with pure randomness. You're statistically likely to say those kinds of anomalies. In fact, it'd be stranger if we *didn't*. c.) The markets aren't *truly* efficient. They can't. There's imperfect information. The point is the potential exploits cannot 1.) be exploited on scale, because that creates market efficiency, and cannot 2.) be public, because that also creates efficiency. As more and more exploits are found, we're eliminating all these black swans. If you compare all 400 professionally managed mutual funds, only 2 have ever beaten the market, and by less than 50 basis points. That's 0.5%. That's not even consistent with randomness, that's worse than random. It goes to show how few and far between any potential exploits exist. It's simply not worth your time as an investor, because if giant firms employing hundreds cannot find them, a handful of people won't be able to find them by anything other than chance. It's almost always better to passively invest. You can read more about this, because while intuitively you may feel active investment can be better, the numbers don't lie and I promise you you're very wrong." }, { "docid": "214518", "title": "", "text": "\"It is likely a scam. In fact the whole mystery shopping \"\"job\"\" may be a scam. There is a Snopes page about cashier's check scams, as well as a US government page which specifically mentions mystery shopping as a scam angle. As for how the scam works, from the occ.gov site I just linked: However, cashier’s checks lately have become an attractive vehicle for fraud when used for payments to consumers. Although, the amount of a cashier’s check quickly becomes \"\"available\"\" for withdrawal by the consumer after the consumer deposits the check, these funds do not belong to the consumer if the check proves to be fraudulent. It may take weeks to discover that a cashier’s check is fraudulent. In the meantime, the consumer may have irrevocably wired the funds to a scam artist or otherwise used the funds—only to find out later, when the fraud is detected—that the consumer owes the bank the full amount of the cashier’s check that had been deposited. It is somewhat unusual in that, from what you say, there has been no attempt thus far to get money back. However, your sister-in-law may have received that info separately, or received it as part of her mystery shopping job but didn't mention it to you with regard to this check. Typically the scam involves telling the recipient to transfer money to a third party (e.g., by buying goods as a mystery shopper, or via wire transfer to \"\"reimburse\"\" someone associated with a sham operation). By the time the cashier's check is revealed as fraudulent, the victim has already transferred away his/her own real money. It's probably worth taking the check to your or her bank and asking them about it. They may have more info. Also, banks usually want to know about scams like this because, in the long run, they accumulate data on them and share that with law enforcement and can eventually catch some of the scammers. Edit: Just to help anyone who may be reading this later. The letter you added confirms it is absolutely a scam. My boss was once contacted via a scam operation very similar to this. The huge red flag (in addition to others already mentioned) is that you are being \"\"given\"\" a check for over $2000, of which only $25 is purportedly for actual mystery shopping and $285 is payment for you, the mystery shopper. The whole rest of the $2000+ amount is for you to wire to \"\"another Mystery/Secret Shopper in order for them to complete their assignment\"\". They are giving you $2000 to give to someone else who is supposedly another one of their own employees/contractors. Ask yourself what sane business would conduct their operations in this way. If you work at a law office, or a hamburger stand, or a school, or anything you like, does your boss ever say \"\"Here is your paycheck for $5000. I know you only earned $1000, but I'm just going to give you the whole $5000, and you're supposed to use $4000 of it to pay your coworker Joe his wages.\"\" No. There is no reason to do that except that the \"\"other mystery shopper\"\" is actually the scammer.\"" }, { "docid": "104572", "title": "", "text": "Can they reject a hundred dollar bill as a payment of debt?! No. A creditor cannot refuse payment in cash, whatever denomination you use. HOWEVER, when you're buying stuff - you don't owe anything to the business owner. There's no debt, so the above rule doesn't apply. As long as there's no debt in existence, the matter of payment is decided between two parties based on the mutual agreement. The demand not to use large bills is reasonable in places like 7/11 or taxi-cab that are frequently robbed, or at a small retailer that doesn't want to invest into forgery detection and fraud prevention. So the answer to this question: Is it the case where this practice of accepting small bills and rejecting large bills is perfectly legal? Is yes. You can find the full explanation on Treasury.gov, including code references." }, { "docid": "451898", "title": "", "text": "\"Discussing individual stocks is discouraged here, so I'll make my answer somewhat generic. Keep in mind, some companies go public in a way that takes the shares that are held by the investment VCs (venture capitalists) and cashes them out of their positions, i.e. most if not all shares are made public. In that case, the day after IPO, the original investors have their money, and, short of the risk of being sued for fraud, could not care less what the stock does. Other companies float a small portion up front, and retain the rest. This is a way of creating a market and valuing the company, but not floating so many shares the market has trouble absorbing it. This stock has a \"\"Shares Outstanding\"\" of 2.74B but has only floated 757.21M. The nearly 2 billion shares held by the original investors certainly impact their wallets with how this IPO went. See the key statistics for the details.\"" }, { "docid": "295738", "title": "", "text": "\"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: \"\"Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?\"\" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for.\"" }, { "docid": "190011", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt;so I would like to ask you which, at this project, poor management skill of Oracle staffs or plan of Oregon are worse to be accused. **I believe there is an increased burden on the employer (Oregon) to effectively manage the scope of the work required for the project that the contractor (Oracle) is working on**. Otherwise, the contractor has plausible deniability for being able to provide deliver a quality working solution. &gt;Or do you think that plan was made mainly by Oracle? I think the plan was **mostly made by Oracle with the requirements given by Oregon**, and that's where things seem messy. My gut tells me though that when an employer hires a contractor for the creation of a fully integrated enterprise system, that the employer essentially signs their financial life away to the project in a way that absolves the contractor of indirect or direct \"\"damages\"\" that come from the result of unforeseen implementation requirements or issues. Oracle has been around long enough to know how to legally cover their asses. If there is anything that Oregon may have traction on, it would be a few of their fraud claims, given that Oracle has made [two settlements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_corporation#Justice_Department_lawsuit) with federal agencies of ~$100 &amp; ~$200 million since 2011 which were from allegations of fraud or false claims. Such claims by Oregon may be supported by the fact that they allegedly have a former Oracle employee who can substantiate the poor quality of the product they were giving to Oregon, but that blame might go back to Oregon's specifications which I have no insight into. As someone who has witnessed a couple of employer and contractor relationships between public &amp; private entities, my hope out of all of this is that: * Sales people for contractors think twice before over-promising technology solutions that their company can't fully deliver on given resource constraints or lack of employer specifications. * Employers \"\"hiring\"\" such entities manage them, expectations, plus the overall project effectively while accepting personal accountability &amp; responsibility. I think the only people who have a clear picture of what was going on were anyone from either party who were on the front lines of managing the project, developing the systems, or running them.\"" }, { "docid": "498378", "title": "", "text": "\"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"" }, { "docid": "575007", "title": "", "text": "\"I will disagree with some of the other answers here. In my view, the most important dimension of the situation is not your friend's potential loss but the potential losses of the people he may convince by using his position as youth group leader, etc., to draw more them into the scam. Exactly how to handle this depends on many factors that aren't mentioned in your question (and probably rightly so, as this aspect of the situation moves beyond personal finance). For instance, if your friend is a \"\"pillar of the community\"\" who is widely trusted, and you are not, there may be little you can do, since people will believe him and not you. If you have some influence over the groups he is trying to recruit, you can attempt to provide a counterweight to his recruitment activities. Again, how to do this depends on other factors, such as how he is recruiting them. If he is just privately contacting individuals and inviting them to these meetings, you may have to just keep your eyes peeled for anyone who seems tempted and try to dissuade them before they suffer the \"\"brainwashing\"\". If he actually tries to do some sort of public recruitment (e.g., holding a meeting himself), you could try to inject doubt by, e.g., attending and asking probing questions to expose the dangers. If you think the danger is widespread, you could consider taking some more public action, like writing a column in a local paper about this organization. Of course, another major factor is how much you think people stand to lose by this. However, in your question you indicated that your friend has invested \"\"multiple month or years of income\"\". If he intends to pressure others to invest similar amounts, this sounds to me like enough danger to warrant some preventive action. Few people can afford to lose months or years of income, and sadly those most vulnerable to a scammer's siren song are often those who can least afford it. It doesn't sound like a situation where you'd have to devote your life to the cause of stopping it, but if I knew that dozens of people in my community stood to lose years of income, I'd want to make at least a small effort to stop them, rather than just keep my mouth shut. In doing this, you may lose your friendship. However, you stated that your goal is to resolve the situation in a way that is \"\"best with lowest loss of money for everybody\"\". If you really take this utilitarian view, it is likely that you may have to give up on the friendship to prevent other people from losing more money.\"" }, { "docid": "341148", "title": "", "text": "I say, before investing your real capital into the Stock Market, play around on the virtual stock exchange game. It let's you invest with virtual capital and you can gain experience with the stock market. I wouldn't start investing in stock until I'm sure I can cover losses though. If you do intend to invest stocks so early in your career, then you should learn how to read SEC filings (not necessary, but helpful in understanding how investors think) such as 8-K/10-K/10-Q documents so you can predict profitability and growth of companies you invest in. Once you become a veteran of the stock market game, you probably won't need to read the SEC filings into too much detail - especially if you have a diverse portfolio. Good Luck. The one takeaway from this message would probably be: Stop! and play around on virtual stocks before immersing yourself in the real thing." }, { "docid": "455261", "title": "", "text": "You will want to focus on how much is needed for retirement, and what types of investments within the current 401K offerings will get you there. Also will need to discuss non-401K investments such as an IRA, college savings, savings for a house, and an emergency fund. The 401K should be a part of your overall financial picture, how much you invest in the 401K depends on the options you have (Roth 401K available), how much matching (some a little or a lot), and your family plans. You have a few choices: Your company through the 401K provider may provide this service. They may have limited knowledge in what non-401K funds you should invest in, but should be able to discuss types of investment. Fee only planner. They will be able to discus types of investments, and give you some suggestions. Because they don't work on a commission they will not make the investment for you. You need to be able to make the actual selection of investments, so make sure you get criteria to focus on as part of the package. Commission based planner. Will make money off your investment choices. May steer you towards investments that their company offers or ones that offer them the best commissions in that investment type. If the 401K doesn't use funds that the planner can research you will need to provide a copy of the prospectus provided by the 401K. My suggestion is the fee only planner. They balance the limited focus of the 401K company without limiting themselves to the funds their company sells. Before sitting down with the planner get in writing how they fee structure works. A flat fee or hourly fee planner will be expecting you to do all the investment work. This is what you want. Let the fee only planner help you define your plan. But also reanalyze the plan every few years as your needs change." }, { "docid": "241585", "title": "", "text": "\"&gt; Uber wasn't trying to track everybody post ride for fun, they were trying to model future demand for cars before somebody punched in they needed a ride. Well, I'm sure that was *one* of the reasons - even the primary reason, perhaps. But it's a bad idea to assume that companies are only using certain data in the ways you think they are. Like, when you pay with your credit card at a restaurant... You may expect them to keep a file linked to the card number so that they can track what people order over time. You *probably* don't expect them to explicitly match your credit card to your FB/LI/etc, create a file of information about you with pictures, and then use that info to instruct your server next time to talk about travel because you have a trip coming up. You *probably* don't expect them to share your file with other restaurants, so when you go to a different restaurant next week, the server there knows to upsell you on the wine. You *probably* don't expect them to sell that profile to data brokers who match all that to public record data (like mortgages and car registrations) in order to sell to yet other companies. But they do those things. Same deal with literally every company who obtains data. The correct calculation when deciding to give data to a company isn't \"\"what is the data and what do I think the company will do with it.\"\" **The correct calculation is:** - what is the data - how can that data be combined with data about me from *everywhere* else: social networks, public records, credit card transactions, location data, etc - who could potentially get their hands on it (generally the company's tech/marketing partners and vendors + data brokers -- assume everyone) - what's the worst possible way that I imagine this could be used (e.g., to show me ads for italian restaurants, to show me higher prices because it looks like I'm a big spender, to prove that I'm cheating on my wife, etc) Then if you're still cool with giving them the data, awesome! Just remember that we have crappy memories, but computers don't. You might not recall that night in a hotel a few years ago, but computers do. You may not pick up on the subtle long term patterns in your own behavior (like the fact that your \"\"totally random cravings\"\" for a Big Mac occur predictably every 12-14 months), but computers will.\"" }, { "docid": "37454", "title": "", "text": "This is excellent advice. I would make sure that you arm yourself with some solid questions about the company including reformatting some of the questions that they ask you. Interviews should be a two way conversation, the more you get them talking, the more comfortable they'll be to recommend you. Some questions to ask: 1. Tell me a bit about your (interviewer) background? This gets them talking a bit and allows you to relate with them 2. Where do you see the company moving in the next 5 years? 3. Why is this job opening available? 4. Can you tell me a bit about the corporate culture? 5. How can the company invest in me? 6. What are the qualities that will make me successful in this job? 7. Tell me a bit about our competitors (you should know some of them) and what sets this company apart? Make sure you're armed with as much information about the company as possible. One of the things that set me apart when I interviewed at the company I'm working at now was I came into the interview with the company's financial report and started asking specific questions about details on that report. Also, MAKE SURE TO GET A BUSINESS CARD OR CONTACT INFORMATION BEFORE YOU LEAVE. Thank you letters are an annoying formality, but it is necessary, don't rely on the recruiter to give you that information." } ]